Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,405
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Apparently Sony and the Estate were granted their appeal. Ugh...

Correct.


Of course the usual suspects are twisting the court ruling and are now writing things that are not implied by this ruling at all.
Serova's lawyers should not have taken the route that solely focused on whether there was commercial speech or not. As I've explained, if there was none at all, consumers could still be deceived/damaged (thanks to the bona fide rights protection that protects consumers' due right in the propriety of an article of trade) and Sony & Estate could not be removed from the case this easily.



Let me put it this way: do you think there is any MJ on those songs besides copy/pasted samples from earlier MJ songs?


I'm just tired to repeat the same answer I have given years ago: there are Michael Jackson lead vocals on all Cascio recordings that are not copy-pasted from the archives.
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,914
Points
48
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#9888;&#65039; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CascioCase?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CascioCase</a> UPDATE &#9888;&#65039;<br><br>The unthinkable has happened! <br><br>The Los Angeles 2nd District Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of Sony Music &amp; the Michael Jackson Estate, ruling that they SHOULD be allowed to sell FAKE songs to consumers &amp; say they’re real.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RemoveCascioTracksNOW?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RemoveCascioTracksNOW</a></p>&mdash; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034502631236878336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">OUTRAGEOUS!<br><br>The Court of Appeal has ruled that the wording on the MICHAEL album cover, which says: &quot;This album contains 9 previously unreleased VOCAL tracks PERFORMED BY MICHAEL JACKSON,&quot; is NOT a &#39;commercial&#39; statement by Sony that the vocals are performed by Michael Jackson.</p>&mdash; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034516632914124800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&quot;We conclude that the challenged representation - that Jackson was the lead singer on the three Disputed Tracks - did not simply promote sale of the album, but also stated a position on a disputed issue of public interest.&quot; - Court of Appeal.</p>&mdash; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517254409347073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The court ruled that because the songs were a &quot;controversial issue of interest&quot; for fans, Sony&#39;s false statements are &quot;subject to full First Amendment protection. They are therefore outside the scope of an actionable unfair competition or consumer protection claim in this case.&quot;</p>&mdash; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517261900365824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The court also stated: &quot;The identity of the lead singer was also integral to the artistic significance of the songs themselves,&quot; meaning if Sony did NOT state that these songs were Michael Jackson, they&#39;d be worthless. WHICH THEY ARE! BECAUSE THEY&#39;RE NOT MICHAEL JACKSON SONGS!</p>&mdash; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517264752504832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Let that statement sink in. That is like saying &#39;Sony are allowed to tell its consumers that fake songs are real, because otherwise the multi-billion dollar corporation wouldn&#39;t be able to convince innocent consumers to buy them. Poor Sony. They had no choice but to lie.&#39; <br><br>WTF!</p>&mdash; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517269215232000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,914
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Of course the usual suspects are twisting the court ruling and are now writing things that are not implied by this ruling at all.
Can you clarify? Which things do you think are twisted?

I'm just tired to repeat the same answer I have given years ago: there are Michael Jackson lead vocals on all Cascio recordings that are not copy-pasted from the archives.
Just wasn't exactly sure what your position was (still not totally, but thanks for answering nevertheless).
 

OnirMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
6,341
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I'm just tired to repeat the same answer I have given years ago: there are Michael Jackson lead vocals on all Cascio recordings that are not copy-pasted from the archives.

You have some serious hearing problems my friend :)

No disrespect :)
 

SmoothGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
2,695
Points
83
SoCav;4229145 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#9888;&#65039; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CascioCase?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CascioCase</a> UPDATE &#9888;&#65039;<br><br>The unthinkable has happened! <br><br>The Los Angeles 2nd District Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of Sony Music & the Michael Jackson Estate, ruling that they SHOULD be allowed to sell FAKE songs to consumers & say they&#8217;re real.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RemoveCascioTracksNOW?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RemoveCascioTracksNOW</a></p>&#8212; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034502631236878336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">OUTRAGEOUS!<br><br>The Court of Appeal has ruled that the wording on the MICHAEL album cover, which says: "This album contains 9 previously unreleased VOCAL tracks PERFORMED BY MICHAEL JACKSON," is NOT a 'commercial' statement by Sony that the vocals are performed by Michael Jackson.</p>&#8212; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034516632914124800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"We conclude that the challenged representation - that Jackson was the lead singer on the three Disputed Tracks - did not simply promote sale of the album, but also stated a position on a disputed issue of public interest." - Court of Appeal.</p>&#8212; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517254409347073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The court ruled that because the songs were a "controversial issue of interest" for fans, Sony's false statements are "subject to full First Amendment protection. They are therefore outside the scope of an actionable unfair competition or consumer protection claim in this case."</p>&#8212; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517261900365824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The court also stated: "The identity of the lead singer was also integral to the artistic significance of the songs themselves," meaning if Sony did NOT state that these songs were Michael Jackson, they'd be worthless. WHICH THEY ARE! BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MICHAEL JACKSON SONGS!</p>&#8212; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517264752504832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Let that statement sink in. That is like saying 'Sony are allowed to tell its consumers that fake songs are real, because otherwise the multi-billion dollar corporation wouldn't be able to convince innocent consumers to buy them. Poor Sony. They had no choice but to lie.' <br><br>WTF!</p>&#8212; A Truth Untold (@ATruthUntold) <a href="https://twitter.com/ATruthUntold/status/1034517269215232000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Could they be any more misleading? Nobody said Sony was allowed to sell fake songs. That's not what the ruling said at all. I disagree with the ruling but ATU and Co are losing credibility quite quickly with how they are twisting everything.
 

OnirMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
6,341
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

This ruling is absolutely disgusting.

But maybe that's not important at all because Sony and the Estate will have to remove the songs from Michael's discography when Cascios and Porte lose the other case.

When they prove in court that the songs are not sung by Michael Jackson, the Estate will have to do it and today's ruling will become irrelevant. The other case against the real criminals here is the most important for all of us and for Michael.
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,405
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

These people have a severe lack of understanding legal talk. Serova's lawyers have failed to argue why the case should involve Sony and MJ Estate as defendants once Sony/Estate used the anti-SLAPP motion (protects them against abusive cases such as, say, fans complaining about this and that without any merit). They only wanted them to be liable because of the way they did actively advertize the album and for that they wanted to use various examples which has raised the question whether these examples would be categorized as "commercial speech" (thus they would qualify as defendants) or not. But some were public matters such as the Oprah interview and others are standard business procedures that don't fall under "commercial speech" either (see below, too).

The issue with Serova's case is that their lawyers wasted time and effort when they should have taken another approach which is that consumers would - without any need for commercial speech - rightfully assume that a commercially released album and its individual songs labelled as "Michael Jackson" would actually have him singing on them because Michael Jackson is an established singer who would always sing on his songs. This is called the bona fide rights protection which applies to objective consumers.

I'll repeat myself: in this case it means that Michael Jackson was known to be a vocal performer, a singer and all of his previously released albums would contain songs that he performed on his own, not one exception.
From past empirical values consumers could rightly expect that the album or individual songs that are all labelled "Michael Jackson" would be sung by no other than Michael Jackson. Unlike groups like Genesis eg Michael Jackson did not have another singer that would perform instead of himself.
The album was teased with "Breaking News", labelled "Michael Jackson". Consumers could in no way conclude that instead they would buy songs that were not sung by Michael Jackson. They could only acquire the individual songs or the album in good faith, thus they would have been deceived/damaged if the songs were instead performed by an entirely different person. Due to Michael's name recognition and his body of work, noone would expect songs by "Michael Jackson" to be sung by person XYZ instead. That can't be said for every artist but in Michael's case there would not be any other expectation that consumers can rely on.

Consumers are legally granted the due right in the propriety of an article of trade and Sony & Estate have been selling these articles of trade to the public.

Additionally, the omnipresent labelling (especially in today's digital age), the credits, the (public) copyright registrations that have legal consequences - all these things are NOT commercial speech, yet they are all publicly viewable and consumers can perceive them.

A lot of wasted time and Serova's lawyers have unfortunately failed to see that. Because Sony and the Estate could not be removed from the case if they made this clear to the judges. It is an established principle of the law that protects consumers and the case should have focused on that from day one, yet not even a word about it.
 
Last edited:

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Court docs Please note this sentence on the last page. Since the Estate and Sony have been removed from the suit (they didn't commit fraud, supposedly the Cascios did), then they don't have to rule on the verbiage on the album/liner notes.

I guess had they been kept as defendants we would have got to that point-the last few lines in the ruling "we therefore not reach the issue of whether the challenged statements would be misleading to a reasonable customer." But since they aren't, they don't have to rule on that.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-MEsJRutxj712QI2GmT_RcHfpMRLiJP_/view
 
Last edited:

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Could they be any more misleading? Nobody said Sony was allowed to sell fake songs. That's not what the ruling said at all. I disagree with the ruling but ATU and Co are losing credibility quite quickly with how they are twisting everything.

Well, in essence that's what they are saying. They are selling fake songs and they have just been let off the hook for it.
 

MusicMan26

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
296
Points
18
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

And it will give them the arrogance to possibly do it again if they so desire.
 

morinen

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,074
Points
48
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

The issue with Serova's case is that their lawyers wasted time and effort when they should have taken another approach which is that consumers would - without any need for commercial speech - rightfully assume that a commercially released album and its individual songs labelled as "Michael Jackson" would actually have him singing on them because Michael Jackson is an established singer who would always sing on his songs. [...]

A lot of wasted time and Serova's lawyers have unfortunately failed to see that. Because Sony and the Estate could not be removed from the case if they made this clear to the judges.

You misunderstand both the procedure and the law. Once Sony and the Estate brought the "free speech" defense, we could not choose any alternate route, we had to respond to their defense. So it was not a "failure" on our part to do anything.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal's holding is that it doesn't matter that the consumers were misled. Because the Court found Sony and the Estate's statements on the CD and in the video ad to be non-commercial speech, their lies are protected. They could say it's MJ, they could say it's Frank Sinatra - as long as they didn't know for sure and it was a matter of public debate, they had the right to say that and cannot be held responsible even if consumers blindly believed them and spent money on something that turned out to be not what was advertised.
 

Korgnex

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,405
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

As a defense to anti-SLAPP you had to response, correct. However your lawyers have failed to introduce arguments why and how consumers could still be misled - without any active part from Sony/Estate (aka without commercial speech/advertizements needed) - by the parties that have been selling articles of trade and the US law does have a fundamental right that can apply here if it is introduced to the judges.

You actually misunderstand the ruling, it was not decided that it doesn't matter whether if consumers were misled, it doesn't matter IF THEY ARE MISLED BY NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH which in other words means they profited from freedom of speech and were saying things just like anyone can say anything (as long as it is not against the law).

That's the applicable subset from the First Amendment that applies to their anti-SLAPP:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There's a misunderstanding on your side, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

SmoothGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
2,695
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Well, in essence that's what they are saying. They are selling fake songs and they have just been let off the hook for it.

Not at all. If Damien and his pals want to twist things and misinform people that's their prerogative I guess.
 

kai

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,245
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I'm just tired to repeat the same answer I have given years ago: there are Michael Jackson lead vocals on all Cascio recordings that are not copy-pasted from the archives.

Can you tell us a part with MJ lead vocals? for example on breaking news? Which minute/second?
 

kai

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,245
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Breaking News Acapella.
Released by Sony in 2010 to prove that it's MJ.

https://instaud.io/2CbD
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,583
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Breaking News Acapella.
Released by Sony in 2010 to prove that it's MJ.

https://instaud.io/2CbD

How or why they thought they could get away with this.. Oh wait, they have and thus will continue to shit on MJs legacy.
 

alxizzle

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2016
Messages
22
Points
3
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

is Keep Your Head Up at least written by MJ?
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,583
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

is Keep Your Head Up at least written by MJ?

He had nothing to do with any of these songs.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,277
Points
38
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I'm quite frankly disgusted that anyone would defend what happened here and sling patronising remark after patronising remark over people seeking to uncover the truth.

I can't sugar coat it. It's indefensible, morally reprehensible and a universal slamdunk betrayal of Michael.

But it's his birthday today, so may we all be granted peace in Michael's words "lies run sprints, the truth runs marathons".
 

SmoothGangsta

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
2,695
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

I'm quite frankly disgusted that anyone would defend what happened here and sling patronising remark after patronising remark over people seeking to uncover the truth.

I can't sugar coat it. It's indefensible, morally reprehensible and a universal slamdunk betrayal of Michael.

But it's his birthday today, so may we all be granted peace in Michael's words "lies run sprints, the truth runs marathons".

Nobody is defending what happened here. I certainly haven't, I'm just saying that when you distort facts and try to make certain things about your agenda instead of the factual basis of what is happening you look rather unhinged (not speaking to you in this regard) The fact is nobody has officially decided if the songs are real or fake. We know they're fake but it doesn't just work like that in court. I'll be waiting to see what happens with the fraud case.
 
Last edited:

kai

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
3,245
Points
83
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

is Keep Your Head Up at least written by MJ?

I am sure none of the cascio tracks have anything to do with MJ.
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,699
Points
48
FakingMichael-300x300.jpg


Faking Michael is an investigative podcast series detailing the 8-year quest for the truth about a collection of 12 allegedly-fake Michael Jackson songs. The songs, known as the Cascio tracks, were sold to Sony by Jackson&#8217;s longtime friend, music producer Eddie Cascio, and his collaborative partner, James Porte, in mid 2010 &#8212; a year after the singer&#8217;s sudden death. Upon hearing them, members of the Jackson family, a number of producers who worked with Michael throughout his career, and thousands of fans around the world accused Cascio and Porte of fraud, insisting that the songs were fakes &#8212; sung not by Jackson, but by an impersonator. Undeterred by the controversy, Jackson&#8217;s estate and record label insisted the vocals were authentic, officially attributing the Cascio tracks to the King of Pop when three of them were released by Epic Records on the Michael album in December 2010. But strong doubts regarding the authenticity of the tracks remain.


https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/faking-michael/id1434372710?mt=2&i=1000418631848
 
Last edited:

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,583
Points
83
StellaJackson;4229258 said:
FakingMichael-300x300.jpg


Faking Michael is an investigative podcast series detailing the 8-year quest for the truth about a collection of 12 allegedly-fake Michael Jackson songs. The songs, known as the Cascio tracks, were sold to Sony by Jackson&#8217;s longtime friend, music producer Eddie Cascio, and his collaborative partner, James Porte, in mid 2010 &#8212; a year after the singer&#8217;s sudden death. Upon hearing them, members of the Jackson family, a number of producers who worked with Michael throughout his career, and thousands of fans around the world accused Cascio and Porte of fraud, insisting that the songs were fakes &#8212; sung not by Jackson, but by an impersonator. Undeterred by the controversy, Jackson&#8217;s estate and record label insisted the vocals were authentic, officially attributing the Cascio tracks to the King of Pop when three of them were released by Epic Records on the Michael album in December 2010. But strong doubts regarding the authenticity of the tracks remain.


https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/faking-michael/id1434372710?mt=2&i=1000418631848

Stella!! Haven't seen you in years since I, you, Arklove, Jesta, Bumper Snippet and a few others used to discuss the tracks!!
 
Last edited:

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
It&#8217;s Not Sony&#8217;s Fault If It Sold Fake Michael Jackson Songs

Judges say Sony and the Michael Jackson estate can&#8217;t be sued for three contested MJ songs &#8212; but no ruling yet on whether the songs are real or fake

Michael Jackson fans may be a bit disappointed during this worldwide celebration of the icon&#8217;s diamond birthday. A ruling has been issued in the years-long class-action lawsuit alleging that three King of Pop songs were not in fact sung by the King of Pop &#8212; but it doesn&#8217;t actually give an answer on the authenticity of the songs.

Instead, three appeals court judges ruled on Tuesday that Sony and the Michael Jackson estate cannot be held accountable for the three disputed songs (&#8220;Breaking News,&#8221; &#8220;Keep Your Head Up&#8221; and &#8220;Monster&#8221;) and the two parties have been removed from the case. Sony&#8217;s Epic Records released the three songs on the posthumous album Michael in 2010, and they quickly drew skepticism from a number of Jackson fans and relatives who, pointing to stylistic differences and inconsistencies in the way the tracks surfaced, claimed the vocals were actually sung by an impersonator. In 2014, one fan, Vera Serova, brought a class-action lawsuit against Sony, the Jackson estate and the producers involved.

On Tuesday, the panel of judges said that because the two parties did not know for sure whether it was Jackson singing on the songs, the album&#8217;s promotional materials and cover were not strictly claims about the contents of a commercial product, and thus are not eligible for the commerce-specific claims that Serova brought against them in the class-action suit.

But there&#8217;s no word yet on whether the songs are actually fake or real &#8212; despite erroneous news reports last week that Sony had made some sort of admission in court. In 2010, Sony and the Jackson estate both strenuously defended the authenticity of the songs; they have, however, since backed down in vigor, saying in December that it actually might be possible for the vocals to have been sung by an impersonator, but that the label should not be held liable for fraud because it believed the producers&#8217; claims of authenticity.

In court documents, justices did not comment on Sony and the Jackson estate&#8217;s actual responsibility for the songs, focusing more on the parties&#8217; eligibility for the terms of the lawsuit. &#8220;Because [Sony Music, MJJ Productions and the Jackson estate] lacked actual knowledge of the identity of the lead singer on [&#8220;Breaking News,&#8221; &#8220;Monster&#8221; and &#8220;Keep Your Head Up&#8221;], they could only draw a conclusion about that issue from their own research and the available evidence,&#8221; appellate justice Elwood Lui wrote. &#8220;Under these circumstances, [Sony and the estate&#8217;s] representations about the identity of the singer amounted to a statement of opinion rather than fact.&#8221;

He continued: &#8220;We conclude that the challenged representation &#8212; that Michael Jackson was the lead singer on the three Disputed Tracks &#8212; did not simply promote sale of the album, but also stated a position on a disputed issue of public interest. The identity of the artist on the three Disputed Tracks was a controversial issue of interest to Michael Jackson fans and others who care about his musical legacy. The identity of the lead singer was also integral to the artistic significance of the songs themselves. Under these circumstances, Appellants&#8217; statements about the identity of the artist were not simply commercial speech but were subject to full First Amendment protection. They are therefore outside the scope of an actionable unfair competition or consumer protection claim in the case.&#8221;

Serova&#8217;s case against the producers involved in the three songs is still ongoing.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/sony-michael-jackson-songs-716930/
 

Pentum

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
7,127
Points
63
Location
Norway
Re: Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Well that was something. Sounded a lot like the lead vocalist in places from first listen just at a different pitch?
No, this is James Porte, doing most of the background vocals on the Cascio songs. The songs were originally recorded by him, doing the lead vocals, but those are not available. Maybe they are present in the multitracks, I don't know. Korgnex might know, as he clearly has the/some multitracks.

I was actually thinking about this the other day when I saw this post. Couldn't remember the name though hahaha. Can definitely hear him those tracks.

Here is James Porte on a Cascio song: https://instaud.io/2CeE
Here is Jason Malachi, same Cascio song, different part of the song: https://instaud.io/2CeG

AND here is a clip of Jason doing the same type of vocals on his own released song, followed up by the previous clip from the Cascio song: https://instaud.io/2CeR
 
Top