Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

This has been fascinating and hilarious and better than I had even envisioned.
The whole point is that Quincy saw those Forbes reports and just wants more.
I knew his testimony was going to go like this. Damn smart of Weitzman to use those demos.
 
Quincy lost the plot years ago.
His lack of respect towards Michael and his family is disgusting.
Fair enough he produced some of the most popular tunes in pop culture, however he's one of those kind of people who knows it.
He should proberly take the time to look back and think that it was actually MJ who brought him that money with his talent and fame.
However, the way the Branca pop has been running the Estate and using his powers to edit and use certain parts of songs to exclude the producers etc is a bad trick and just shows what kind of person we are dealing with.
 
Wasn't Michael hurt Jones didn't give him the full production credit to him on Billie Jean or was it something I misread?

Howard proved Quincy gave himself more production credit than what he actually deserved. Well played Howard, well played! :toofunny:
 
4200999 said:
http://www.courthousenews.com/quincy-jones-testifies-30m-royalty-fight-michael-jackson-estate/


After taking the stand, Jones told his attorney Mike McKool that during his 70-year-career he learned that he could only make successful records with “extreme love, respect and trust.” He had left the negotiating of his contracts to his attorneys because he did not know how to translate the “legalese.”

“.

Why didn`t Jones sue his attorneys when they are not able to write the things in the contract for Jones who feels he deserves.
 
My understanding of the contract is not clear enough to be upset at Quincy nor on his side.. the way I read things it's so ambiguous!
 
Its his attitude on the stand and towards mj that has upset many going by the articles posted.that is enough on its own before you start on who is lawyer is etc etc etc

Everytime theres such lawsuits its the same reaction. Same ole..

Q is upset about crap remixes effecting his rep.yet didnt mind the pyt remix garbage involving robin thicke etc. Pot kettle black ?.
 
Last edited:
Repeatly saying not caring of the contract doesn`t indicate the contract states the things you claim you are deserving.
 
^ lol very true... And doesn't help his case either. let him say it over and over again, it makes him sound very dumb
 
Quincy Jones I cared more about him as a human being than about the money."

To him it all about the money the pocket is empty.
 
What a min is that the same mark shaffel that is dating debbie rowe?
 
Does the jury only decide if Jones should be paid or not and if they decide he should get something more will they have to determine how much?
 
Weitzman should have asked him back: "And have you - without MJ?" :p

A couple, actually. Baby, Come to Me, the song he produced with Patti Austin and James Ingram went to #1. He also produced Lesley Gore's #1 hit It's My Party.

For sure the majority are with MJ (and I get your general point), but he's still got a few.
 
http://www.billboard.com/articles/n...n-estate-lawyers-quincy-jones-trial-exclusive


Michael Jackson Estate Lawyers on What to Expect as Quincy Jones Trial Closes: Exclusive
Billboard

7/24/2017 by Justino Aguila

If Michael Jackson could see that his longtime friend and collaborator Quincy Jones was suing him in court for millions of dollars, “Michael would be rolling over in his grave,” says entertainment attorney Howard Weitzman, whose team is representing the Jackson estate in the case.

Weitzman, along with attorney Zia Modabber, spoke with Billboard exclusively as they prepared to head to Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday to convince a jury in their closing arguments that Jones is not entitled to receive the additional $30 million he is seeking in royalties. The case pits the legendary 84-year-old producer against the estate of the King of Pop, who died eight years ago after his doctor administered a fatal cocktail of medications.

Jones, who testified in court last week, maintains that he’s owed the royalties for the use of the songs from Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad and the film This Is It, among other projects. Jones has already received about $18 million in royalties since Jackson’s death, according to testimony given during the trial; his legal team did not respond to a request for comment.


Quincy Jones Takes the Stand in Michael Jackson Royalties Trial

But after nearly three weeks presenting a jury with evidence, testimony, music and line-by-line royalty summaries in an effort to prove that Jones is only entitled to a share of record sales, Weitzman says that he believes that the primary reason Jones is unhappy is because his name was left out of the credits for the film This Is It. The estate acknowledged that the omission was an error and said Jones received an apology.

Weitzman and Modabber spoke to Billboard about the trial so far and what to expect from their closing argument Monday, which they promise will be “entertaining.”

What are your thoughts about the trial up to this point?

Weitzman: For us this case is kind of a simple breach-of-contract case, and Mr. Jones wants money that he's not entitled to. He's been paid every time his masters have been used. He's been paid his fees for all the recordings and he wants additional money, and we don't think he's entitled to it. He has testified that he doesn't care what the contract says. This case was filed four years after Michael died. It appears from the testimony that he [Jones] became upset because he did not get proper credit in the film This Is It.

Why didn't Jones get credit for the film This Is It?
Weitzman: We made a mistake, to be that blunt. He wasn't involved in anything about the movie. Obviously he produced the masters in the late '70s and through the mid '80s on those three albums, Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad, and he's certainly entitled to credit as a producer on those masters. Yes, he should have gotten the credit, but I'm not sure how that gets you on a platform to jump off and file a lawsuit four years after Michael died and after This Is It was released. He basically suggested that he didn't care what the contract says and that he should [be part of] Michael's 1991 joint venture with Sony.

Modabber: The movie This Is It was rehearsal footage [from Michael] that was never intended to be publicized. The vocals and the audio weren't perfect. Michael owned these master recordings and so they went to those recordings that he owned, and they were edited in bits and pieces in the movie to make it sound bettet.


Quincy Jones Earned $18 Million in Royalties Since Michael Jackson's Death


Weitzman: And Quincy got paid his fees on that.

Modabber: He got paid his fees using the exact same formula that is always used when masters that a producer produces are used in a movie. He got paid for Michael's masters being in the movie, something like $400,000 or $500,000, but he [Jones] has learned through this lawsuit that the estate has made something like $90 million and we think he's really upset that the estate made all this money, and he and his lawyers don't seem to have the ability to comprehend that the contributions of those masters for that movie is really a tiny little piece of what it was.

Weitzman: What we [the estate] are supposed to do is exploit the assets post death, and we got pretty lucky with This Is It and who knew? But it wasn't about the music. It was about Michael. Nobody would be buying tickets to the theater to listen to snippets of the masters.

Modabber: Take a step back and think about how much of that money is attributable to the snippets of the masters. The testimony came in that they paid a little over $4 million for all the masters in the movie. Quincy Jones is not the producer on all the masters. He's the producer on two-thirds of the masters. He gets his producer's share, which is a fraction. He doesn't get all that money. The money goes to the owner of the masters and Sony. Sony Music is the distributor. That is a truckload of money for one producer to make for snippets. It's the most amount of money that has ever been paid for master-use fees, maybe in the history of movies.

Do you believe that Jones deserves to receive some money?

Weitzman: Quincy Jones had the right to audit the record company directly for his producer royalties and he has done that for decades and it's always been worked out. That audit process was started before this lawsuit was started and the record company has calculated that Quincy has been underpaid by just under $400,000. In the real world when a record company says, "Okay we found these mistakes," and it's $400,000, it probably settles for a little bit more than that. Maybe it settles for $500,000 or $600,000 or $700,000. We told the jury that mistakes were made and he's owed some money. You've got a guy with a zillion different records sold in a zillion different ways in a zillion different places. Mistakes were made. It's the record business, but nobody is fighting about that. [Music attorney] John [Branca] testified that he told Howard to go offer him $2 or $3 million, five times what the record company found that he was owed by these mistakes and that was not good enough.

How much has the estate made since Michael's death?

Weitzman: It's been hundreds of millions of dollars.

Modabber: On top of paying all of the debt.

His children benefit from that?

Weitzman: They are the only beneficiaries.

How is the family dealing with this case?

The family is not involved because they are not beneficiaries although part of the estate's responsibility is to take care of Mrs. Jackson for her life, which we do. The children don't really know Mr. Jones and they are just aghast but they are not really involved because they didn't deal with him, and they were young when the This Is It film was made.

What are your plans if Jones receives a significant amount of money?

Weitzman: If it's zero the only impact is that we had to spend money for the lawyers to defend the case and go through the aggravation and anxiety. If he gets [major] money obviously there is a process post-trial, and we'll take advantage of all that, and sometime in the future if there is no relief there, then he'll get paid.

What are the legal costs for this case?

Modabber: A lot. These are on both sides. It's an expensive case.

How do you want Michael Jackson to be remembered?

Weitzman: I want him to continue to be remembered as one of the great musical entertainers of all time.

Modabber: That sums it up.

How are you preparing for the closing arguments?

Weitzman: We don't want to share that ... we would like a element of surprise. Zia and I are going to split up the argument, but let me say this: it will be entertaining.
 
[FONT=&amp]"CONTRACT MONTRACT"
[/FONT]

Quincy Jones, who is suing the Estate of Michael Jackson for $30m for alleged breach of contract, earned major press coverage with his testimony on 7/20. But Jackson’s team points out that the trial had been going on for weeks, with minimal press, prior to Jones taking the stand. They say the case is not based so much on standing contracts as unfounded interpretations—coupled with an emotional appeal that Jones should have a greater share of the Estate’s success.

The Estate team, led by Ziffren Brittenham’s John Branca and John McClain, has transformed the $500m in debt the singer left after his 2009 death into big profits, thanks to a series of innovative record, film, stage and other projects, creating a huge base of wealth for Jackson’s progeny.

Jones, some observers say, feels entitled to a greater share of that pool of money than his contracts stipulate, perhaps motivated by a claim to greater credit more than greed. “I’m not suing, Michael,” he said on the stand. “I’m suing you all [the Estate team].”

Jones has earned some $100m overall on Jackson projects and $19m just since the artist’s death. Any monies he might be awarded by the jury in this case would come out of the Jackson children’s share.

“What’s happened [with the Estate] is nothing short of a miracle for Michael’s kids,” insists MJ Estate attorneyHoward Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert. “And all of a sudden, out of left field, a guy you would never expect this from makes these claims.”

During his time on the stand, Jones—the producer of Off the Wall and Thriller and co-producer (with Jackson) ofBad—underlined his contributions to Jackson’s albums. When pressed on the points of the deals he’d signed, however, Jones was dismissive. “I don’t care what the agreement says,” he said at one point; at another, “contract, montract.” He made several other remarks minimizing the importance of contractual language (and admissions that he hadn’t read his contracts) throughout his exchange with Weitzman.

“Quincy’s lawsuit [alleges] breach of contract and yet he says the contract doesn’t matter,” notes Branca. “An interesting theory.”

No one on the Jackson team underestimates Jones’ creative contribution. “He is and was a phenomenal producer,” says Branca. “Nobody is trying to take anything away from Quincy,” adds Weitzman. “He is as good as anyone who ever was as a producer. But it’s fair to say that Michael took him to another level too. And he’s done quite well, to say the least.”

Jones has been compensated in the same way—and by the same people, namely Branca—for more than 30 years. During that same period, the producer was repped by Don Passman. “Don never made any of the major claims that are being advanced in this case in 30 years,” Branca relates. “The only thing that’s changed is Quincy’s legal team.” That team, he says, has “trumped up a bunch of stuff and thrown it in front of the jury in the hopes of them getting confused and something sticking.”

“Quincy’s lawsuit [alleges] breach of contract and yet he says the contract doesn’t matter,” notes Branca. “An interesting theory.”

Jones has hired Texas contingency lawyer Mike McKool of McKool Smith, whose new legal team is making a number of fresh claims. One is that the producer is entitled to be paid on song downloads as though they are a license rather than a sale; another is he should participate in productions like the documentary film This Is It andCirque du Soleil’s Jackson-themed shows as though they were videos, rather than master use licenses; and still another is that a standard clause in his deal that gave Jones first crack at requested “re-edits” from newly submitted albums should now be construed as the exclusive right to do any reworkings of the tracks, in perpetuity.

The Estate called music-biz contract specialist Owen Sloane of Eisner Jaffe as an expert witness to dispute these claims. Sloane described the demand for ticket royalties, for example, as “outrageous” and “absurd.”

It should also be noted that Jackson paid Jones monies not owed contractually as a sort of honorarium, and that the Estate has maintained this tradition. “Technically he only gets paid on the sale or download of records,” Branca points out. “Nevertheless, we have paid him, at my instruction—and, of course, Michael’s, since the ’80s—as if he had a clause in the contract.”

“What do you imagine Michael Jackson would think,” muses Weitzman, who gives his final argument to the jury today (7/24), “if he knew what was going on?”

Source - http://hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=307627
 
Regarding downloads: what's the difference beteween a license and a sale. And this seems like Quincy is only entitled to sales royalties anyway.

And yes, he is greedy. 18 million dollars is nothing to turn your nose up at. It's a ridiculous sum of money. And he should actually feel grateful and blessed that their paths crossed and they created magic that will always be remembered, enjoyed and loved forever.

Another 30 million is just greed. He's mad because they have it and he doesn't. I'm sure he thinks that if attorneys that had nothing to do with making the music are making millions, why shouldn't he?
 
This, on top of everything else, means that I have finally lost every single ounce of respect for Quincy. I hope he loses and the Estate sue him four costs.

Greedy bastard.
 
Actually it feels like worse than greed to me. The soundtrack was filled in from the Masters mostly because MJ wasn't singing 'full out' in the rehearsals. And most of the 'public' probably didn't know that the film soundtrack was infilled. So Quincy goes out of his way to ensure that everyone knows, and he gets his cut, even though the film was only released publicly because MJ died....

Weitzman: What we [the estate] are supposed to do is exploit the assets post death, and we got pretty lucky with This Is It and who knew? But it wasn't about the music. It was about Michael. Nobody would be buying tickets to the theater to listen to snippets of the masters.
 
Actually it feels like worse than greed to me. The soundtrack was filled in from the Masters mostly because MJ wasn't singing 'full out' in the rehearsals. And most of the 'public' probably didn't know that the film soundtrack was infilled. So Quincy goes out of his way to ensure that everyone knows, and he gets his cut, even though the film was only released publicly because MJ died....
True-I wouldn't have known it. And didn't know it. So Q got paid 500K just to use those snippets. I think that's fair. More than fair.

Probably could have left it as is, and we wouldn't have noticed either.
 
I haven't read all through this thread, but this quote from an interview about the Wiz has always stayed with me, about Q:


Quincy Jones was always present. (In the film, Jones appears dressed in gold, playing a giant piano in Times Square.) He, too, began to pay attention to Jackson. When it came time for the Scarecrow part, Michael stepped to the microphone and began to sing, not the bright-sounding Michael Jackson of “I Want You Back” but the 18-year-old MJ whose voice had evolved into something as smooth and powerful as the Concorde. Cohen, the producer, noticed Jones gaping. “He looked at Michael the way a jaguar looks at a goat,” Cohen says. “It was like, ‘I want him.’ ”

http://time.com/4135018/the-wiz-michael-jackson/
 
Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson’s Estate Duel Over Contract Wording in Royalties Trial
http://variety.com/2017/music/news/quincy-jones-michael-jackson-estate-royalties-trial-1202504981/


Ricardo Lopez


July 24, 2017 | 01:30PM PT


A Los Angeles jury on Monday heard closing arguments in a music royalties trial pitting veteran music producer Quincy Jones against the estate of Michael Jackson, who dueled over whether Jones had been underpaid.

Jones claims he is owed $30 million in unpaid royalties and licensing fees for music he produced and that was used after the singer’s death in Cirque du Soleil shows and the film “This Is It.”

The civil case spanned just over two weeks in Los Angeles Superior Court and will be decided by a 12-member jury that begins deliberations this week.



Related
Quincy Jones
Quincy Jones Testifies Against Michael Jackson Estate: ‘I Was Cheated Out of a Lot of Money’


During the closing arguments, attorneys for both sides accused the other of “word games” as they took their last shot to persuade the jury. They offered conflicting interpretations of contract language, urging them to consider how Jones had been paid under two previous producing contracts he signed with Jackson.


Scott Cole, an attorney for Jones, said the producer was wrongly cut out of the deals Jackson’s estate had negotiated for the “This Is It” documentary and the two Cirque shows. Jones’ attorneys argued that a previous contract signed by Jackson and Jones should have counted those reproductions as “records” and be paid accordingly. Under the terms of the past contract, Jones should have been given first shot at remixing the songs, they argued.

“From 1978, up until Michael’s death, this partnership worked as it should have,” Cole said, painting his client as someone who is not litigious. “After seven decades, Quincy Jones filed his first-ever lawsuit,” he said.

Using a projection screen, the two sides highlighted for the jurors contract language and other materials that they said bolstered their sides.

Jones’ team referenced a letter of direction by Jackson telling Sony how to calculate royalties payable to Jones. Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson estate, pointed to Jones’ testimony on Friday as evidence that the producer does not care what the language contract says and is instead seeking to make more money on top of royalties already paid.

Attorneys for Michael Jackson’s estate acknowledge Jones is owed some money – between $2 million and $3 million – but they contend that Jones is wrongly trying to be paid more money than he is entitled to.

These are “claims that never came up while Michael was alive,” said Zia Modabber, an attorney for Jackson’s estate, accusing Jones and his legal team of a “tortured” interpretation of the past contracts.

The lucrative joint ventures that came after Jackson’s death generated roughly $500 million for the estate, which benefits, among others, Jackson’s three children. Modabber said that Jones had been paid $18 million since Jackson’s death and that “the way Mr. Jones got paid did not change.” The film and the Cirque shows, he said, were deals independent of the past contracts Jones had with Jackson.

Modabber added: “Mr. Jones’ work ended 20 years ago. He wasn’t given more in the new deal.”

At times, Jones, 84, who wore a dark, pin-striped suit and sat in a wheel chair during the proceedings, would shake his head and scoff during the defense’s closing argument.


He produced three albums with Jackson: “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” and “Bad.” He filed the lawsuit in 2013, four years after the singer died.

Filed Under:
Michael Jackson,
Quincy Jones
 
myosotis;4201676 said:
I haven't read all through this thread, but this quote from an interview about the Wiz has always stayed with me, about Q:

Quincy Jones was always present. (In the film, Jones appears dressed in gold, playing a giant piano in Times Square.) He, too, began to pay attention to Jackson. When it came time for the Scarecrow part, Michael stepped to the microphone and began to sing, not the bright-sounding Michael Jackson of “I Want You Back” but the 18-year-old MJ whose voice had evolved into something as smooth and powerful as the Concorde. Cohen, the producer, noticed Jones gaping. “He looked at Michael the way a jaguar looks at a goat,” Cohen says. “It was like, ‘I want him.’ ”
http://time.com/4135018/the-wiz-michael-jackson/

Rob Coen remembering in the Off the Wall doc. Probably one of my favorite reminisces ever. I almost doubled up laughing, because it was probably so damn on the money true.
 
I'm just not understanding this. Jones said he's owed 30 million dollars just because? I admit that I have not been following this trial but what proof has he shown? Besides the fact he's a bitter old man
 
I hope the closing arguments were as good as the interview that they gave Billboard-that put it all in perspective and explained it very well, IMO.
 
July 24, 2017 3:51pm PT by Ashley Cullins

Jury Begins Deliberations in Quincy Jones-Michael Jackson Estate Royalties Dispute
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...hael-jackson-estate-royalties-dispute-1023965
Jones says he's owed $30 million, while Jackson's estate puts it closer to $400,000.

Chris Walter/WireImage

Michael Jackson (left) and Quincy Jones

Advertisement

Jones says he's owed $30 million, while Jackson's estate puts it closer to $400,000.

Talk of "word games" dominated closing arguments in the royalties trial between Quincy Jones and a company owned by Michael Jackson's estate — and a jury of 10 women and two men will soon have to define terms like "record" and "videoshow" to determine how much money, if any, the producer is owed.

Jones sued MJJ Productions in 2013, claiming that after the King of Pop's death Jones was shorted tens of millions in royalties and wrongfully denied the opportunity to remix works he created with the artist. The estate says some run of the mill accounting errors did cause Jones to be shorted, but he's owed about $392,000 — not the $30 million he's asking for.

Closing arguments ended just before lunch Monday in a crowded downtown courtroom. So crowded, in fact, the legal teams used "seat fillers" to make sure all of their people had a seat — leaving several members of the press hunkered near the entrance, pressed up against a wall to avoid the judge's line of sight. The courtroom assistant warned that if the judge saw them peeking around the corner, he'd kick them out.

Jones attorney Scott Cole led off closings by telling the jury the case was about two men and "the landmark music they created." He described MJJ's defense as nothing more than "word games and loopholes" and emphasized that this is the first time in a seven-decade career that Jones has ever filed a lawsuit.

Because the dispute centers on two contracts, the 1978 and 1985 producer agreements between Jones and Jackson, the precise definitions of words are key. Under the deals, Jones is entitled to a share of record royalties from Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad. The parties dispute whether Jones should share in the profits from Jackson's 1991 joint venture with Sony, and whether he should share in net profits from movies instead of licensing fees from the songs used in them.

Jones argues that the This is It documentary counts as a "videoshow" under his contract, and he's entitled to a share of net receipts. Meanwhile, MJJ says the term is used for things like music videos and isn't relevant here.

The jury will also have to decide what it means to "remix" a song. Jones says his contract gives him right of first refusal to remix any of the works he produced for Jackson, while MJJ says that right was limited to remixes ordered by Sony (then Epic) at the time the albums were being produced.



Quincy Jones

Read More

Quincy Jones Takes the Stand in Michael Jackson Royalties Trial


MJJ attorneys Zia Modabber and Howard Weitzman split closing arguments for the defense.

Modabber reiterated that the Sony joint venture was announced in the early '90s, and Jones didn't complain about his stake until two decades later. He also notes that Jackson's death has been lucrative for the producer. In the two years prior to his June 25, 2009, passing, Jones made $3 million from his share of their works. In the two years after Jackson's death, Jones made $8 million.

While reminding the jury that Jackson isn't here to defend himself, Modabber imagined the artist would say to Jones, "You didn't make me."

When Weitzman took over, he turned the focus to the words Jones used during his testimony. Specifically, he questioned Jones' claim that he doesn't care about the contract and isn't bringing this case because of money. He also said that allowing Jones to claim a share of net receipts on the documentary would be like telling the theater audience that, when they bought their tickets, they really bought a record.

Weitzman also reminded the jury that Jones has cashed $18 million in checks since Jackson's death and continues to be paid per MJJ's interpretation of their deal. He then asked the jury to send Jones a message: "You don't deserve a raise. You can't have any more of Michael Jackson's money."

Jones attorney Mike McKool picked back up for his team, and pointed out that Jackson's estate has made about half a billion in profits since the artist died. "This is a lot of money," he told the jury. "We all know that."

Both sides point to a jury instruction about how to interpret the terms in a contract, and, interestingly, both say it is an asset to their respective arguments. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern read it as part of jury instructions just after the lunch recess. In short, he told jurors that in order to interpret what the words in a contract mean, they can consider the actions of the parties from the time that it was signed until the moment the dispute began. So how the jurors feel Jones, Jackson and MJJ treated the business relationship from 1985 until 2013 will likely be a key factor in their decision.

Stern also reminded the jurors that they only need to decide whether an allegation is "more likely to be true than untrue" and nine jurors out of 12 must agree on each question on the verdict form before moving on to the next. Deliberations began at approximately 2:30 p.m.
 
Colossal coin for ‘Q’? Quincy Jones demands $30M for Michael Jackson hits
https://www.google.de/search?site=&...j1.1.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0.xj2l5dVjIjQ

Posted by Christina Kelley on July 24, 2017 in Hollywood | 32 Views | Leave a response

Photo via Pixabay

Quincy Jones is entitled to more than $30 million in royalties for the use of any Michael Jackson songs he helped produce and which were later used in the film “This is It” and other projects, an attorney for the Grammy Award-winning music producer told a jury Monday, but a lawyer for a company created by the late singer says Jones is entitled to just under $400,000.

The lawyers made their pitches to a Los Angeles Superior Court jury hearing final arguments in trial of Jones’ lawsuit against MJJ Productions Inc., which is now part of the singer’s estate.

“This case is about two men, Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones, and the music they created 30 years ago, some of the most loved and popular music ever,” said one of Jones’ attorneys, Scott Cole.

MJJ lawyers concede Jones, 84, was not fully compensated for his work, Cole said.

“They’re only saying they don’t want to pay the full amount,” Cole said.

Attorney Howard Weitzman, on behalf of MJJ Productions, countered that Jones had already been paid millions of dollars and will continue to receive money.

“But you don’t deserve a raise, man,” Weitzman said, looking toward Jones, who shook his head in disagreement as he listed to the lawyer’s argument.

Weitzman said Jones testified he did not care about the language of the contracts that he signed.


Jones’ suit alleges he is entitled to box office profits from “This is It” and two Cirque du Soleil shows about Jackson.

“This is It” is a 2009 documentary that traces Jackson’s rehearsals and preparation for a series of London concerts that never happened. The singer had been preparing for the shows when he died in Los Angeles on June 25, 2009 — 18 days prior to the tour’s start date — of a drug overdose at age 50.

Jones alleges that master recordings he worked on were wrongfully edited and remixed so as to deprive him of bonus profits. He also says a 2009 joint venture between MJJ and Sony should have increased his royalties share and that he was denied credit for his work on the singer’s works released after his death.


Like this story?

Sign up here and MyNewsLA.com will deliver every must-read local breaking story to your inbox, twice a day—for free!

Email:

Check for a confirmation email, and then you're all set with MyNewsLA.com!


Jones made agreements with Jackson in 1978 and 1985 for work on the singer’s solo albums in which the producer claims he was given the first opportunity to re-edit or remix any of the master recordings. He also maintains that the coupling of master recordings with other recordings required his permission and that was to be given producer credit for each of the master recordings.

“He had a right to protect his works and they didn’t even ask him about it,” Cole argued.

But Zia Modabber, who also argued on behalf of MJJ Productions, said Jones never owned Jackson’s master recordings.

“These are Michael Jackson’s masters, he owns them,” Moddaber said. “This is a grab for money that Mr. Jones isn’t entitled to.”

Weitzman said the hundreds of millions of dollars the Jackson estate executors have accumulated since the singer’s death have benefited the entertainer’s three children; his mother, Katherine Jackson; and various charities.

Jones filed the lawsuit in October 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

–City News Service
 
Whether Quincy sought out lawyers or lawyers sought out Quincy, it doesn't matter. His case is weak.
He admits he signed contracts blindly without wanting to read them and trusted in his legal team.
That's what contracts are for, to document what you're entitled to! Don't sign without reading!
Michael knew what the business could do, so he educated himself
and ensured that we would make the most he could. He has been described as a shrewd businessman.

Sounds to me like Quincy's been more than compensated for his contributions ( which stopped after the 80s ) and he should just quit while he's ahead.

I believe this is the #1 thing holding up new projects.
 
Back
Top