Latest on MJJC

Universal Music Group Sues MJ Estate! (MJ Singing R Kelly Song)

Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

babykinsilk05 said:
I hope these bitch a**es are suing Bret Rathner too, lmao, he was singing right along with MJ. What a f**king joke.
Click to expand...

That's so true. And if you watch intently, Michael ONLY danced. As for Bret, he danced AND sang. You can see his lips moving to the words in the front seat.

This is pathetic.

I guess Janet's company should sue Michael also for dancing to her song in the home movie too.

And for goodness sake, that song was on the radio! Anyone can turn on the radio in the car and video tape themselves while listening, then upload it.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

Why the hell do they even want $3000?

What is that to them? Nothing.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

you gotta be f****** kidding me?!no way.....lmao what a bunch of losers!
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

Dangerous Incorporated said:
R.Kelly was found guilty of PLAGERISM regarding YOU ARE NOT ALONE as he didn't write the song.

[youtube]8PrJ7jf8cbI[/youtube]

Now I didn't like him just because of that (as it put MJ in bad light pertaining to his music) but now this?

Kelly better get on to UM and sort this out if he really was a friend of MJ's.
Click to expand...

#FAIL!

R. Kelly wasn't found guilty! Both camps came to an agreement outside of court and the court even found it to be coincidence. Also the song isn't allowed to be played in Germany :lol: But I'm sure that changed once MJ passed away and R. Kelly is going to perform in Germany in a few months.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

this is effin stupid!!!!!!!!!!!! LIKE MJ SAID PPL WILL DO ANYTHING FOR MONEYYY!!!!!
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

are you kiddingggg meee?


nobody ever heard of that song, till MJ did it. then, i heard it on the radio by Kelly. if anything MJ put that song on the map. i hope the lawyers consider that.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

James Dee said:
1) So it's not R Kelly filing suit, it's Universal
2) Unfortunately it's legitimate if they didn't have permission to use the song on the show - but is it MJ's estate who are accountable? Who produced the show?
3) And why now, not back then?
Click to expand...

- Yeah it's Universal, R. Kelly may not even be aware of it... although he'll probably hear about it!
- I completely agree, they always go after MJ... but who produced/aired the show. They should go after them....
- Heh, they probably weren't aware of it until R. Kelley showed it at his show.

It's stupid, but in a way I see why Universal is doing it. The station that aired it made ad revenue on that show, a show in which a song of Universals was used without their permission.... but I don't think they should go after MJ's estate unless MJ produced AND aired it himself. Did MJ even make any money off PHM?
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

That clip has been around for seven years and they just now have something to say about it? Why didn't they sue when Michael was alive? They had to have known about this even then. The timing makes no sense to me.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

trueiopian said:
#FAIL!

R. Kelly wasn't found guilty! Both camps came to an agreement outside of court and the court even found it to be coincidence. Also the song isn't allowed to be played in Germany :lol: But I'm sure that changed once MJ passed away and R. Kelly is going to perform in Germany in a few months.
Click to expand...

:clapping:Thank You! This lawsuit was complete and utter CRAP! Say what you want about R Kelly, but the man never stole a song from anyone in his life.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

vncwilliam said:
are you kiddingggg meee?


nobody ever heard of that song, till MJ did it. then, i heard it on the radio by Kelly. if anything MJ put that song on the map. i hope the lawyers consider that.
Click to expand...

:lmao:

You wish!

MJ's private home videos where shown in 2003. Ignition (remix) came out in '02 and was a major hit then and still till this day is getting recurrent plays worldwide and trust it has nothing to do with MJ shoulder bopping to it.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

The few things I don't get with this is that PHM aired years ago, why did Universal not sue anyone then, why now? And why are they sueing MJ's estate, FOX aired it, sue them.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

sloride said:
The few things I don't get with this is that PHM aired years ago, why did Universal not sue anyone then, why now? And why are they sueing MJ's estate, FOX aired it, sue them.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm wondering the same. I think Sony is the one suing since the song was released under Sony and Jive.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

vncwilliam said:
are you kiddingggg meee?


nobody ever heard of that song, till MJ did it. then, i heard it on the radio by Kelly. if anything MJ put that song on the map. i hope the lawyers consider that.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I love MJ to pieces and I will try and give him credit for almost anything, but Ignition was a big hit independent of MJ's Private Home Movies, it went to #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts only to be denied by 50 Cent's In Da Club and we all know how HUGE that song was.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

reecieboo23 said:
Sorry, I love MJ to pieces and I will try and give him credit for almost anything, but Ignition was a big hit independent of MJ's Private Home Movies, it went to #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts only to be denied by 50 Cent's In Da Club and we all know how HUGE that song was.
Click to expand...
lol exactly!
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

sloride said:
I doubt it's R Kelly personally, I bet its down to Universal. R Kelly seemed so touched that MJ was dancing to Ignition in his car I highly doubt he would sue the estate. Can't believe Universal though. Seriously, what heartless cowards. I hope Weitzman tells them where to shove it.
Click to expand...

babykinsilk05 said:
It's not R-kelly doing the suing, HE was over the moon when he saw that clip, he even played it as part of his tribute to MJ at his concerts, it's the publishing group that owns the song. They are the dumba**es here.
Click to expand...

Agree with both of you and everyone else who's said the same thing.

This could have an easy solution tho. Universal is suing becuz the song was used in PHM which, by law, should have cleared permission for the song to be heard onscreen. Royalties for any kind of music that appears onscreen or in a public way like a nightclub, has to be paid for. This isn't music-related but it reminds me of the movie This Is It. Michael is wearing a t-shirt with Popeye on it in the film...totally random. However, Sony had to get permission from whoever owns the copyright to the Popeye image in order for it to appear in the film...otherwise they'd have to blur the image out. The credits appear at the end of the movie show permission was granted for the image to appear. This is why music publishing or any kind of publishing/image rights is SO lucrative. Everytime someone "breathes" a note of a song or it's lyrics, which isn't used in a "free use" manner, money has to be paid.

BUT there could be an easy solution.

R. Kelly has used the PHM footage in his concerts to show Michael singing to Ignition. If R. hasn't cleared the PHM footage with MJ's Estate, then R. Kelly can be countersued for using footage he, or Universal, didn't get permission to use. Both sides can call it a draw and a day...the end. However, IF R. Kelly got permission, then....it's unfortunate that Universal would piss on Michael's grave to get $3,000 stinking dollars. A company worth all that money crying about $3,000 when the man is now dead is just tacky tack TACKY! It was over 7 years ago and they just now decided to cry foul?

**** ***!!!

Not sure if R. Kelly has control of his own publishing in any way, but even if he doesn't, he should speak out against this. Name and shame. Tell the world YOU aren't THIS hard up and/or greedy for $$$$.
 
Last edited:
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

You all need to relax. If Mike didn't pay to use the song, then he owes the publishing company. Its business. Its ridiculous timing, and it may seem greedy, but it seems like they're only asking for what they're owed instead of some obnoxious amount. Someone dropped the ball by not clearing that song for the show. If its on Mike, then the estate has to pay, plain and simple. How can you be upset by such a legitimate claim?

And its Universal that filed the claim, not R. Kelly.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

A. Sizzle said:
You all need to relax. If Mike didn't pay to use the song, then he owes the publishing company. Its business. Its ridiculous timing, and it may seem greedy, but it seems like they're only asking for what they're owed instead of some obnoxious amount. Someone dropped the ball by not clearing that song for the show. If its on Mike, then the estate has to pay, plain and simple. How can you be upset by such a legitimate claim?

And its Universal that filed the claim, not R. Kelly.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Michael didn't USE the song because the song was played on the RADIO...hellooooo!!!
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

trueiopian said:
R. Kelly wasn't found guilty! Both camps came to an agreement outside of court and the court even found it to be coincidence. Also the song isn't allowed to be played in Germany :lol: But I'm sure that changed once MJ passed away and R. Kelly is going to perform in Germany in a few months.
Click to expand...

What is your source for this as this link which includes a news report from Holland doesnt agree with you.

http://mediatakeout.com/2010/23047-...hael_jacksons_hit_song_you_are_not_alone.html

and here:

On September 4 2007 the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the song "You Are Not Alone", created by singer-songwriter and producer R Kelly and performed by Michael Jackson in 1995, was plagiarized from the song "If We Could Start All Over" by the Belgian songwriters Eddy and Danny van Passel in 1993. Facts
After the internal committee of the Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM) found strong similarities between both melodies, the Van Passels applied to the Court of Leuven for an injunction against R Kelly and Zomba Record Holding Holland BV to prohibit the further exploitation of "You Are Not Alone".
On January 20 2003 the court rejected the claim. It calculated that the melodic similarity of the works was 43.46% and held that this degree of similarity could be mere coincidence.
The Belgian duo appealed to Brussels Court of Appeal.
Although the court acknowledged that the score of "If We Could Start All Over", as filed with SABAM in 1993, was limited to a melody, without information on harmony, rhythm or timbre, the court decided that the score should be deemed to be protected by copyright, as it was an original work that resulted from the creators' intellectual efforts and bore the stamp of their creative personality. The court also emphasized that the copying of part of a protected work can be considered plagiarism if the part in question is original.
The court analyzed the conflicting reports of various musicologists, but stressed that the question should not be determined solely on the opinion of music experts; rather, special attention should be given to the experience of listening to the recorded works being played.
The court concluded that there was almost no difference between the melodies of the two songs.
Similarity and Plagiarism
Belgian case law and doctrine provide that similarities between works can be found to be plagiaristic, regardless of whether the original elements of the older work are reproduced intentionally or unintentionally.
If a creator can prove that his or her composition pre-dates another and that the newer work contains original elements that can be found in the older composition, the new song is presumed to have been copied from the old song. The burden of proof shifts to the composer of the new work - Kelly in this case - who must show that the elements were not copied. The burden of proof necessarily relates to the question of whether the composer of the new work had access to the older work.
Kelly stated that he could not be guilty of plagiarism, as he had never met the Van Passels and had no knowledge of their earlier work. He claimed that any similarity between the works was due not to copying, but to coincidence.
Decision
The court found that Kelly had failed to support his statement. Kelly provided the court only with a copy of the final score of his work as registered in August 1995. The court found that the registered score, containing all of the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic information for the song, must have been the result of a creative process and must have taken time to create. Working documents, digital data or other information relating to the creative process might have demonstrated that Kelly had composed an original musical work and had not infringed the Van Passels' rights.
The court also observed that it was reasonable to assume that Kelly had had access to "If We Could Start All Over", observing that 21 months elapsed between the registration of the score of the earlier work with SABAM and the public release of "You Are Not Alone" in June 1995.
Although "If We Could Start All Over" has never been commercially released, the court found that it was plausible that the creators “did not create their work merely in order to register it with SABAM and put it in a drawer, but at least informed third parties of the existence of their composition”.
However, the decision provides no information on how the Van Passels' work was made public (eg, at concerts or on radio or television), nor does it confirm that the work was recorded in any medium or that the score was commercialized.
The court ruled that "You Are Not Alone" plagiarized the earlier work. It upheld the Belgian songwriters' original claim, ordering that Kelly's song be banned from broadcast and withdrawn from all commercial outlets in Belgium. Vendors which fail to comply face a fine of €1,000 for each copy of the song.
Comment
After a 12-year legal battle, the Van Passels have gained recognition for their work - but only in Belgium.
This ruling is the second in under two years to involve plagiarism and an international star. On November 18 2005 the Mons Court of First Instance held that Madonna’s song "Frozen" contained elements of an earlier work by a Belgian composer and that Madonna had been able to access the earlier work (for further details please see "Madonna Frozen Out in Plagiarism Case").
Click to expand...
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=f1448147-08a8-4a08-8dd1-031860ebeed7

I believe it is you who #FAIL ;)
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

James Dee said:
1) So it's not R Kelly filing suit, it's Universal
2) Unfortunately it's legitimate if they didn't have permission to use the song on the show - but is it MJ's estate who are accountable? Who produced the show?
3) And why now, not back then?
Click to expand...

I was asking myself the same questions ...
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

athina_livadi said:
What are you talking about? Michael didn't USE the song because the song was played on the RADIO...hellooooo!!!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. Like I said about the Popeye shirt. He was simply wearing clothes, something we all do everyday without thinking about it, yet becuz that image was about to be seen onscreen in a commercial way (used in a film), the image had to be cleared for use. I know...it sucks...but randomness costs when used for commercial purposes.

It stinks that they're asking for it now tho. Can't get more tacky than this....I hope.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

When i just read the 1st page i had to read it again and basically say wtf......
i am so surprise that this is happening and still ppl want money from his estate,its a fliping joke grrrrrrr :mat:,what will ppl be claiming for next ,wish no one will ever make a claim again but that is never going to happen :(:( xoxo
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

Did most of you not read the first post? R. Kelly is not suing Michael, the Publishing company that owns the rights to the song is. It will be dropped. There was no violation.
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

Dangerous Incorporated said:
What is your source for this as this link which includes a news report from Holland doesnt agree with you.

http://mediatakeout.com/2010/23047-...hael_jacksons_hit_song_you_are_not_alone.html

and here:

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=f1448147-08a8-4a08-8dd1-031860ebeed7

I believe it is you who #FAIL ;)
Click to expand...

I think what's speaking volumes here is that this is only considered plagarism in Belgium...lol Why wouldn't they have filed this claim in the US? And where was R Kelly supposed to have lifted the song from? When did they send him their demo and/or when did he ever go to Belgium to hear it? I mean You Are Not Alone was a huge hit. You mean to tell me that these alleged creators are only happy to have been credited in Belgium? If their case is legitimate there are royalties to be made world wide. :unsure: Why wouldn't they have pursued those?
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

R Kelley is not suing anyone. It's Universal who OWNS the publishing rights. That's totally different than the spin that TMZ put on it with its headline. TMZ, doing their tabloid duty as always. Judging from some of the responses on this thread, TMZ's goals have been accomplished!
 
Re: R.Kelly Sues MJ Estate!

OldSchoolMJFan said:
R Kelley is not suing anyone. It's Universal who OWNS the publishing rights. That's totally different than the spin that TMZ put on it with its headline. TMZ, doing their tabloid duty as always. Judging from some of the responses on this thread, TMZ's goals have been accomplished!
Click to expand...

:doh: Exactly. My goodness! You'd think by now, the average MJ fan should be used to having to read past the GLARING headline.

I did get a kick out of the poster tho that said R Kelly should be paying MJ for making Ignition a big hit...lmao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top