Latest on MJJC

Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

Annita said:
Yes they offered him 2-3 millons. So he gets about 6 million more then the settlement-offer and more then 20 millions less then he wanted.
Click to expand...

The reason why he got 6 millions more is because the jury interpreted "this is it" movie as a video show. otherwise he failed on most of his claims. the first right to remix is also a problem because, it QJ succeeded there, it means everything the estate wants to re-release old hits he produced, they will have to get his permission or involvement somehow until he passes away.
 
passy001 said:
The reason why he got 6 millions more is because the jury interpreted "this is it" movie as a video show. otherwise he failed on most of his claims. the first right to remix is also a problem because, it QJ succeeded there, it means everything the estate wants to re-release old hits he produced, they will have to get his permission or involvement somehow until he passes away.
Click to expand...


Yes we have to wait until we get information how they answered the questions. Only we know so far he got more money for TII

HIStoric said:
Here's hoping they can put this behind them and collaborate on something in the future now, this has gone on long enough.
Click to expand...

I doubt this will be the case, not to mention all of Quincy`s stupid comments in the past.

Maybe it will be better with his heirs in the future.
 
Maybe the estate will move on and realise there is music post bad so he cant cash anymore.

After the things Q has said about mj and his kids and his attitude why any fan would want the estate to kiss and make up is beyond me.
 
People are making the most stupid comments on the Yahoo article about this. They're saying, "Quincy deserves it. He wrote all of MJ's hits..etc." It's infuriating that people still believe this. I left a long reply to one of them lol

Almost any of Michael's hits you can think of were written by him. Quincy obviously wrote none. Yes, Rod Temperton wrote a few on Off the Wall and Thriller but beyond that most songs were written solely by MJ. I don't know where this perception that MJ was not a songwriter comes from. He has written some of the best songs in history by himself. There are demos that he sung and then brought to Quincy and the you can barely tell the difference from the demo because Quincy didn't have much to do to them. Go search Billie Jean demo on Youtube. Almost nothing varies between it and the real thing. Please do some research before you bash the genius that is Michael Jackson!

I was so mad reading the comments lol
https://www.yahoo.com/music/quincy-jones-awarded-9-4-million-trial-over-004221322.html - link to the article
 
Its yahoo what do you expect!

Lesson one of mj fandom never read comments below articles?

IF jones has only got 6 mill because of TII 3 was already admitted to be owed by the estate and nothing else then frankly id take that as TII can be taken either way.
 
I read 3 articles on this late last night but they weren't specific like Variety so I wasn't clear exactly what the jury interpreted in Quincy's favor. TMZ seemed to have it totally wrong. NewsLA and Fox411 a little better. Very anxious to read the questions and answers to this.
It seemed so extreme to me that he was arguing about the 91Sony deal as well as profits from the cirque shows. TII is not a video show but I guess they wanted to give him something. Remixing and coupling with new songs, I get.

I have to say that I'm really disappointed in the Estates response to the suit. I think they could have been a little more dignified and gracious rather than trounce Quincy as an artist. This will just bring more contention in the future. Only awarding him for some of his claims is a win for them. Their arguments were obviously valid and the jury agreed. No need to bash Quincy's past contributions.

(I'll have to go over to yahoo and spout off.)
 
Why what did they say? Jones has been nothing but an ass to mj the kids etc so he deserves everything he gets Just cause a jury rules one way doesnt make it right we have seen enough cases of false convictions. And personally imo such cases as contract law should be judged by legal experts ala fraud and tax etc.
 
Nothing wrong with the Estate-statement, nor did they slam Q. Jones.


Following the verdict, Howard Weitzman and Zia Modabber, attorneys for the estate of Michael Jackson, said Jones should not have received the sum. "While the jury denied Quincy Jones $21 million – or more than two-thirds of what he demanded -- from The Estate of Michael Jackson, we still believe that giving him millions of dollars that he has no right to receive under his contracts is wrong," the pair said in a statement issued to Billboard.

The statement continues, "This would reinterpret the legal language in, and effectively rewrite, contracts that Mr. Jones lived under for more than three decades, admitted he never read, referred to as 'contract, montract,' and told the jurors he didn't 'give a damn' about. Any amount above and beyond what is called for in his contracts is too much and unfair to Michael’s heirs. Although Mr. Jones is portraying this is a victory for artists’ rights, the real artist is Michael Jackson and it is his money Mr. Jones is seeking."
 
Thanks .nothing wrong there At least they didnt call him a monster unlike Q lawyer towards mj. Different case or not
 
ivy said:
--------------------------------------------------------

Overall kinda expected verdict. Jury literally found a middle of the road compromise. I'm far more interested in the specifics of their 28 question verdict form. What did they decide on first right to remix songs and permission for coupling the songs with others. That will have an effect on future releases and projects.
Click to expand...

I'm most curious about these too. Frankly, the need to share with Quincy may affect even decisions to do any video or TV features with OTW-Bad music. For example, I bet he gets a share of profits from Thriller 3D and the Halloween Special now - if This Is It is a "video show," those are video shows as well.

respect77 said:
That's what I thought. How can laypeople decide about complex contractual and legal matters? There should be some level of expertise in the decisions about these kind of cases.
Click to expand...

They break it down to simple questions for the jury. For example, here, the jury had to decide what is a "record" and a "video show." Those can be answered with common knowledge and do not require understanding of complex legal matters.
 
Yes this ruling, if an appeal isn't successful, has the potential to really influence future projects and unfortunately it covers MJ's most successful (and most commercially viable) work. I'm sad to say it, but at least it shouldn't be a handicap for too many more years.
 
I hope with this ruling Jones stops thinking he deserves more money than what he rightfully earns. He was already payed 18 millions since 2009, what he was seeking was a ridiculously high sum of money.
 
morinen said:
I'm most curious about these too. Frankly, the need to share with Quincy may affect even decisions to do any video or TV features with OTW-Bad music. For example, I bet he gets a share of profits from Thriller 3D and the Halloween Special now - if This Is It is a "video show," those are video shows as well.

.
Click to expand...

Thriller 3D is a video, i think there is no dispute her and I think in the testomony they said they paid him for video even it was not in the contract.
Dispute were TII and the Cirque-Shows.
 
Would his heirs get paid or once hes dead thats it interm of royalties?

If they are paying him for things not in the contract then that needs to stop. Mind u he will then sue
 
elusive moonwalker said:
If they are paying him for things not in the contract then that needs to stop. Mind u he will then sue
Click to expand...

I think they did it because MJ did it also (for Videos). I think there was a mention from a handwirtten not from MJ in relation to that.

Edit
 
Last edited:
I don't think there wasn't anything wrong with the Estate's wording. As a matter of fact, they have been far too gracious, as far as I'm concerned. I did however believe that their strategy of presenting in court demos of songs and then the finished product to show the minimal degree of input from Jones was a brilliant move. I think that proved beautifully Michael's genius and his overwhelming contribution to writing his biggest hits.

I've always been among those who couldn't stand the exaggerated credit given to Quincy Jones. Michael, through his God-given talents and strenuous hard work turned himself into an icon and global brand, not any producer who was lucky enough to work with him. It was Michael's talent in writing the most important songs, his charisma and stage presence, his visionary ideas about the importance of music videos - those were the things that pushed him beyond every imaginable edge, unimaginable to anyone but himself, that is. Quincy Jones had nothing to do with any of those. Didn't he also reject some of the biggest hits as well? Goes to show how "far" his much lauded producing skills went. I also believe that QJ stifled Michael's creativity and prevented him from exploring deeper themes. I am incredibly proud of Michael's decision to approach Teddy Riley. As far as I'm concerned, his best work came after leaving Quincy Jones behind and quite frankly I don't care if critics, fans or the general public feel otherwise.

Beyond the artistic issues the single thing that bothers me most is that awful quote during Michael's trials and tribulations. How was it - "he knew the music, but not the man?" I thought that was incredibly low and cowardly. I am supposed to believe in forgiveness, but that is one thing that is very difficult to forget. And although forgiveness for such a terrible statement is hard to come by, I cannot help but have respect for the man's age. I don't think some of the words used have been quite appropriate. May he take the money (whatever amount it's goin' to end up in the end) and ride off into the sunset.

And may the Estate discover the true depth of Michael's catalog and explore it properly. A cute, little Halloween special and a different ending to Thriller will have to do though, in the mean and not necessarily evil time.........
 
Last edited:
Quincy Jones is just another parasite who has lived off MJ for far too long. Even after MJ has passed he can't wait to get his stinking greedy paws on money he's not entitled to - as the contracts show.

Michael did plenty after Quincy was thrown off the gravy train - some of his very best work in fact. Ask yourself this; WTF has Quincy achieved since he left that train? F all, that's what.
 
morinen said:
I'm most curious about these too. Frankly, the need to share with Quincy may affect even decisions to do any video or TV features with OTW-Bad music. For example, I bet he gets a share of profits from Thriller 3D and the Halloween Special now - if This Is It is a "video show," those are video shows as well.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just me but I don't really care about the money side of it. Yes looks like they will need to pay more royalties to Quincy and it would cut into the Estate revenues but still I think that's not a really a big issue. You are right though that it might have an effect on OTW - Bad songs.

To me the more significant issue is the first right to remix and permission for coupling. The coupling issue means if Quincy doesn't say yes, they can't release albums like Bad25. And the first right to remix would mean if he says yes everything would be remixed by Quincy. For example during discovery and depositions, Quincy side asked for Kevin Antunes contract for Cirque shows, they asked Branca why Antunes was hired (he said Jamie King wanted him). During his deposition Quincy said he would have done the mixes. If you assume a scenario where Estate goes to Quincy first and he says yes, every single mix would be done by him.

I asked at another forum that I wonder if people truly believe Michael gave that level of control over his songs to Quincy or anyone. There is also Thriller 25 in which Michael neither asked for permission nor acknowledged Quincy's first right to remix songs. Was Michael breaching his agreement with Quincy or did he think he didn't have to ask for his approval?
 
Very true ivy.imo theres no way mj would give such power over remixes.doesnt even sound logical.hes hardly david morales! have you heard that horrendous PYT remix he was involved in?

Any idea on how this part of the ruling went. At least hes not 25 .
 
ivy said:
I asked at another forum that I wonder if people truly believe Michael gave that level of control over his songs to Quincy or anyone. There is also Thriller 25 in which Michael neither asked for permission nor acknowledged Quincy's first right to remix songs. Was Michael breaching his agreement with Quincy or did he think he didn't have to ask for his approval?
Click to expand...

I think most probably this issue never crossed Michael's mind - at least not since the time the agreement was signed. Especially considering that remixes were done by Sony and his involvement in them was minimal, if at all. What he intended at the time of signing is now a mystery :) It's very possible that he only meant to give Quincy a share of profits and rights related to the initial album release, but not something that would happen decades later. Whoever drafted that agreement did a poor job. When it takes a trial to interpret such basic terms of the contract, it's the sign of a very bad job.
 
When will the exact questions and the jury's answers be made public, do you think? I'm anxious to read just what they granted the 9 million for-if they considered TII a video show (and I guess maybe the DVD would be, although I don't consider it a video show), did this represent net profits or extra royalties?

And I'm wondering what they thought about the remixing and coupling with other songs. Didn't coupling with other songs just start with Thriller 25?
Michael's albums were always remixed for videos and live performances-usually by the engineers that worked on the albums-I don't think Quincy stayed around for that-however, I always saw his name, Rod's and Bruce's in credits for works that included OTW, Thriller, and BAD.

And I really don't understand why Quincy was suing over the 91 Sony agreement with Michael. How could that affect Quincy? And why didn't he sue in 91??
 
morinen said:
I think most probably this issue never crossed Michael's mind - at least not since the time the agreement was signed. Especially considering that remixes were done by Sony and his involvement in them was minimal, if at all. What he intended at the time of signing is now a mystery :) It's very possible that he only meant to give Quincy a share of profits and rights related to the initial album release, but not something that would happen decades later. Whoever drafted that agreement did a poor job. When it takes a trial to interpret such basic terms of the contract, it's the sign of a very bad job.
Click to expand...

I guess they couldnt find the attorney who drafted the contract inorder to have them testify? Surely they would be easy to find or i guess they didnt want to get involved
 
If the terms of the contract really mean that QJ has first refusal for any future mixes of MJ's tunes then that's terrible.
Can you imagine if QJ was the one to have remixed the Cirque songs, or if he worked on BAD25? What if he had a veto on developing mixes for future projects? He's 84 years old! I don't think I want an 84 year old QJ working the new mixes. He can't contemporise them he's out of touch. It sounds as though he can now hold the MJ Estate to ransom now.
 
MJTruth said:
What if he had a veto on developing mixes for future projects? He's 84 years old! .
Click to expand...

My understanding is he doesn`t have a veto-right but has to be asked first if he wants to do it, if not he can not forbid that something other would do it.

But he was never asked in the last 30 years first for doing a remix and he never complains when it happens another person did it until now with Bad 25.

The jury had order to look what happens in the working relation-ship since the 80s. So if he never complains in the last 30 years maybe this means he can`t do it now, same as Michael/Estate paid him for videos even it is not in the contract means now they have to do it further?

When the jury came to this concluison they shoud have also came to the conclusion the first mixing right doesn`t have a meaning today.

Nevertheless I think a first mixing right can only belong to the person Jones and isn`t something it will go to the heirs?

But for now we can only speculate what the jury did decide. Weitzmann only mentions the roality-sum in his statement and nothing about mixing-rights,

maybe that is a good hint.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
I guess they couldnt find the attorney who drafted the contract inorder to have them testify? Surely they would be easy to find or i guess they didnt want to get involved
Click to expand...

The attorney wouldn't be able to testify because such testimony would be conveying what his client (Michael) told him about his intent, and it's a breach of attorney-client privilege a lawyer is not at liberty to make. Plus, the court looks not at what the parties say their intent was, but what intent was manifested by their actions (as a factor, in addition to literal interpretation of the contract language). The fact that Quincy never sued Michael over Thriller 25 supports the estate's theory. But in the end, it's up to the jury to decide how to interpret both the contract words and the parties' actions.
 
He could testify to what the contract was/is hes not talking about private convos with mj but what the contract says.his interpretation as the person who wrote it.

Be intresting if they came out and talked about it even if it wasnt admissable in court

At the end of the day if a contract has to be interprerated to work out what was ment by it then whoever wrote it out did a crap job as a contract should be 100% water tight
 
I'd like to see this whole thing get so sticky that it somehow brings John Landis and Quincy face to face against each other.. Those two, let them have a field day about rights of music and utilization of etc.

I know it wont go there simply because of the arch of how things go, but THAT would be a show entertaining to watch
 
You can watch them argue over who was more more important to thriller. Jones landis or some other guy i cant remember the name of!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top