Latest on MJJC

Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

^ Exactly, and a combo of Quincy (with his entitlement) and John (with his entitlement.. and mouth), that would make an interesting fight!

Celeb death match anyone? lol
 
http://hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=307670

QUINCY VS. MJ VERDICT: THE THRILLER CONTINUES


The jury in Quincy Jones’ breach-of-contract case against the Michael Jackson Estate awarded him $9.4m Wednesday (7/26), a sliver of the $30m he sought, but it appears even that award will be subject to challenge.

The jury, the Estate believes, was unqualified to rule on contractual matters and the judge should not have empowered them to interpret clauses that their verdict shows they didn’t understand. One example regards remixes, in which the CBS/Epic first-crack obligation supposedly owed to Jones for requested re-recordings was erroneously applied to projects like the film This Is It and Cirque du Soleil’s Jackson-themed stage productions, which were overseen by the Estate and had nothing to do with the label. How much of Jones’ award might be set aside on appeal?

Estate attorney Howard Weitzman issued the following statement:

“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. 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 as a victory for artists' rights, the real artist is Michael Jackson, and it is his money Mr. Jones is seeking.”
 
One example regards remixes, in which the CBS/Epic first-crack obligation supposedly owed to Jones for requested re-recordings was erroneously applied to projects like the film This Is It and Cirque du Soleil’s Jackson-themed stage productions, which were overseen by the Estate and had nothing to do with the label. How much of Jones’ award might be set aside on appeal?

----------
Is that a legit point cause some of this is now starting to go over my head.
 
^ A lot of it goes over a lot of peoples head.. we just try to grab onto bits and pieces.. We are not in any of these court rooms so we only have half facts and the rest is speculation.. just being honest!! I mean there is a legit history of people not getting paid what they were owed with specific projects so I don't think it is totally left field to hear people come out and ask for what is owed..

it is just a matter of knowing (which is hard from our perspective) which or what is valid and not, especially since we don't see the contracts signed (most any way) and many of us are not students of the law..

This particular case.. I don't know! I have too many questions to say I know.
 
elusive moonwalker;4202062 said:
One example regards remixes, in which the CBS/Epic first-crack obligation supposedly owed to Jones for requested re-recordings was erroneously applied to projects like the film This Is It and Cirque du Soleil’s Jackson-themed stage productions, which were overseen by the Estate and had nothing to do with the label. How much of Jones’ award might be set aside on appeal?

----------
Is that a legit point cause some of this is now starting to go over my head.
Click to expand...
It does sound like a legit point-I hope they make the questions and answers to and by the jury public soon. And maybe they will include the contracts as exhibits. I don't agree with the "video show" thing either-TII was definitely not a video, unless they are only thinking of the DVD that came out later. It was definitely just filmed rehearsals.
 
KOPV said:
^ A lot of it goes over a lot of peoples head.. we just try to grab onto bits and pieces.. We are not in any of these court rooms so we only have half facts and the rest is speculation.. just being honest!! I mean there is a legit history of people not getting paid what they were owed with specific projects so I don't think it is totally left field to hear people come out and ask for what is owed..

it is just a matter of knowing (which is hard from our perspective) which or what is valid and not, especially since we don't see the contracts signed (most any way) and many of us are not students of the law..

This particular case.. I don't know! I have too many questions to say I know.
Click to expand...

The estate clearly stated it owed jones around 3 million for missed payments that isnt the issue.
 
barbee0715 said:
It does sound like a legit point-I hope they make the questions and answers to and by the jury public soon. And maybe they will include the contracts as exhibits. I don't agree with the "video show" thing either-TII was definitely not a video, unless they are only thinking of the DVD that came out later. It was definitely just filmed rehearsals.
Click to expand...

Yeah we need the answes to see what we are dealing with. I could swing both way re TII as you could call anything a video thats put onto film and contains the music. It obviously didnt state its only a music video that is made to support a single release
 
barbee0715 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I imagine part of the fee was considered as a 'late penalty fee' towards the Estate given they took this long to pay Quincy when he should've been paid years ago - to the Estate's admitting.

The term 'video show' seems quite broad too, I could see the TII falling into that category. This Is It was a video show, it was a show that made heavily use of videos as shown predominantly in the documentary. The documentary itself focuses heavily on this video show and presents the making of these specific videos used in the video show (Thriller, SC etc). You could argue that because we see Michael performing on stage in the documentary, that itself makes it a video show. Very broad term, much to Quincy's advantage and the disadvantage of The Estate.

Additionally, at the theatres alone, This Is It made $261.2 million. Millions and millions more would've come from DVD/Blu-ray/digital sales or television syndication too. For This Is It, $9 million is a pretty small price to pay when most of the royalties went towards The Estate (If I recall correctly... as per the agreement between Sony, Columbia and the Estate).

I'd love to read the Q's and A's too, Barbee!
 
What about other trials involving royalities in the USA in the past. Is it usual that a jury decides in such cases about what has to be paid?
 
elusive moonwalker said:
The estate clearly stated it owed jones around 3 million for missed payments that isnt the issue.
Click to expand...


I thought the original error was for less than 1 million (800,000)? But, because it was their error, The Estate said "give him 2-3 million as an apology"?
 
HIStoric said:
I imagine part of the fee was considered as a 'late penalty fee' towards the Estate given they took this long to pay Quincy when he should've been paid years ago - to the Estate's admitting.

The term 'video show' seems quite broad too, I could see the TII falling into that category. This Is It was a video show, it was a show that made heavily use of videos as shown predominantly in the documentary. The documentary itself focuses heavily on this video show and presents the making of these specific videos used in the video show (Thriller, SC etc). You could argue that because we see Michael performing on stage in the documentary, that itself makes it a video show. Very broad term, much to Quincy's advantage and the disadvantage of The Estate.

Additionally, at the theatres alone, This Is It made $261.2 million. Millions and millions more would've come from DVD/Blu-ray/digital sales or television syndication too. For This Is It, $9 million is a pretty small price to pay when most of the royalties went towards The Estate (If I recall correctly... as per the agreement between Sony, Columbia and the Estate).

I'd love to read the Q's and A's too, Barbee!
Click to expand...
I think your bolded paragraph is the exact reason that Quincy got greedy (as has everyone else) and went all the way back to the 91 creation of the MJJ label with Sony. I think these jury trials aren't proper for complex issues like royalties, and profits and licensing, songwriting and producing. I definitely didn't agree with the "Blurred Lines" verdict-if that's the case, every songwriter in the 70's could have been suing each other for "mood." I didn't agree with the Duran Duran verdict about their copyrights until I better understood the law that governed it.

That said, 9 million is a small amount to pay and that's why I wished the Estate had just accepted it-but then, again, they probably think Quincy would just keep coming back for more or it would bring more people out of the woodwork-like Weisner again, who sued for rights and he was fired from being Michael's manager in the middle of the Thriller run. A VERY LONG time ago.
 
You may a good point in your last paragraph barbee. Since the estate made so much money now everyone seems to want a part of it and if they let this stand and just pay the money, are they risking others coming out with their hands stretched out? Even with 90's material. It will be interesting to see what happens with the appeal.
 
Michael Jackson’s estate wants to appeal Quincy Jones ruling


A Los Angeles jury awarded Michael Jackson’s estate to pay Quincy Jones $9.4 million last week — but the legendary music producer better not spend it.

Howard Weitzman, who represented Jackson's heirs during the three-week trial, told On the Money he has plenty of “post-trial options to overturn the verdict.”

He also plans to pursue them, up to and including an appeal.

“We probably wouldn’t challenge an award up to $2.5 million,” Weitzman said.

Jones received the award for songs he produced for Jackson decades ago that were used in a movie and two Cirque du Soleil shows after the pop star’s death.

What seems to rankle Weitzman most is Jones portraying the legal win as a victory for artists’ rights.

“The jury’s verdict was wrong,” he said. “The real artist is Michael Jackson, and it is his money.”

Michael Jackson’s estate wants to appeal Quincy Jones ruling —

http://nypost.com/2017/07/29/michael-jacksons-estate-wants-to-appeal-quincy-jones-ruling/
 
I still think the jury awarded Jones with a lot of money but in this case if I were Weitzman, I'd let it go to avoid Quincy coming back again. Just my two cents.
 
I think it may be dangerous to accept giving millions in case he really doesn`t deserve it according to his contract. Then really others may come and saying I deserve this and that, it does not matter that it is not in the contract.

What does Weitzmann mean with “post-trial options to overturn the verdict.” Are there any other options as a Appeal.
 
The estate should fight this head-on tooth and nail. Quince won't stop at $9M.
It wouldn't put past me he's embolden by this win, and if there's anything,
this opens the floodgate, fuels his pursuit to seek compensation for any other future or
unclaimed past projects undertaken by the estate.
He needs to be stop in his tracks before PP3 share of their inheritance get chipped away.
Galvanize by his own hubris, even calling this an artists win... SMH...when the REAL artist is Michael Jackson
doing most the work and decision making.
One would expect a jury that's savvy with music and entertainment legalese
to preside over cases like this. This verdict's FLAWED & ought to be overturned.
 
Last edited:
Agree. If they have legit arguments for appeal then go for it. You see what happens when you give in to such people
 
The MJ Estate must fight this. Even if they lose the appeal it demonstrates that they won't be taken for a ride and any claims against them will not be easily won. Yes this course of action could cost them dearly, but if they just lie down and accept the payment they allow others to try and take advantage and that could cost them many millions more in additional lawsuits, settlements or payments. The amount awarded to QJ so far only takes into account the earnings from releases so far, so future releases may mean QJ will be back cap in hand in the future if he's not paid as he would like.

Can the appeal process revise the payment up as well as down??
 
Quincy Jones’ Lawyer on the Crux of the Case Against Michael Jackson Estate, What Happens Next

For Mike McKool, lead counsel for Quincy Jones in the veteran producer’s lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate, the crux of the case came down to a definition of one word: royalty.

On July 26, a Los Angeles jury awarded Jones $9.42 million in damages (he sought $30 million), finding that the producer had been underpaid in royalties for music used in the “This Is It” documentary and two Cirque du Soleil — both successful projects that came after Michael Jackson’s 2009 death.

McKool argued, and the jury seemed to agree, that while the estate entered into a lucrative rearrangement of its deal with Sony Music — a joint venture in late 2009 — Jones was left out. And while the estate contended that the terms of the deal no longer dealt with sales and tangible recorded assets agreed upon with the original contracts Quincy signed — he produced three albums with Jackson: “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” and “Bad,” between 1979 and 1987 — McKool says, “You can’t just change what you call it, or change the way you’re paid, and deprive the royalty holder.”


Following the decision, Howard Weitzman and Zia Modabber, attorneys for Jackson’s estate, commented: “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. … 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.”

McKool, who is chairman of the firm McKool Smith, spoke with Variety the day after the verdict about the significance of the case’s outcome and what comes next.

Quincy Jones is receiving a third of the $30 million he asked for. Would you consider that a win?
The jury went our way on almost all of the liability findings. So we were super pleased with that. But to us, the main value in this verdict is that it legitimized the view that a royalty holder in the entertainment business cannot be deprived of royalties because the parties who owe that obligation decide to rearrange their relationship and [the way] money is flowing. The jury found that the joint venture funds were subject to Quincy’ss royalties — and that is important for him as a future income stream, as long as those immensely popular songs continue to be exploited.

How is it that Jones is entitled to royalties from remixes he didn’t do?
Because they didn’t give him the opportunity. Both contracts said that Michael Jackson will not allow anyone to do any remixes until [Jones is] given the opportunity. No one called, wrote, or gave him that opportunity — and Quincy has been doing remixes in the very recent past, up until 2016. So if you have an obligation like that, and you don’t fulfill it, you can’t get around it because he didn’t do [the remixes]. It was a complete failure by the estate — they were his productions of 29 songs and Michael would not have wanted someone else to be tampering with them.

Who is responsible for policing such payouts?
It’s the artist’s or the producer’s responsibility. They have audit rights. When somebody else is handling all the money, and making all the decisions, the only way to police it is to have auditors [who] take a period of time that’s as much as ten years and make claims.. Quincy’s had the same auditor for about 30 years.

Michael Jackson’s death in 2009 spurred a huge spike in his music sales. What did that mean for Quincy?
One of the obvious signs that all was not well was the change in the way Quincy was treated after Michael died. Our claims really went to that period. Upon the death of a superstar artist — like Prince or David Bowie or George Michael, and certainly the King of Pop — record sales, streaming and other license revenue went through the roof. The estate was able to use that, because Sony’s contract giving [the company the] right to distribute was about to expire — and negotiate a huge increase of the percentage of the funds that was going to the estate. That was the whole crux of our case: however Michael Jackson’s royalty was adjusted, Quincy’s royalty should be adjusted. The estate took the position, that since they didn’t get royalties anymore, that they got this enormous amount of JV profits that he was not entitled to share, he was only entitled to share under his original formula. That violated the requirement that, as the artist’s royalties are adjusted, the producer’s has to be adjusted. The jury clearly they found that this JV profit was just an increase in royalty called by a different name.

Do you think this will impact how recording contracts entered into decades ago are interpreted?
I think this decision will protect all royalty holders.

What happens next?
The defendants made eight motions for a mistrial, which is the most I’ve ever seen, so I would anticipate a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In other words, ignore the jury’s verdict and motion for a new trial. That would be par of the course for a case like this.
 
So, the 18 million Quincy has received since 2009 is from his original formula rate? I wonder how much the jury awarded for royalty supposedly disguised as a joint venture, and how much they awarded for the remix rights.
 
I personally think the thought of 'the biggest selling album of all time' played too much of a role in how much quincy was awarded.. It seems as if they thought what emotionally makes sense over what exactly contractually is stated and owed,.
 
Let people who understand contracts make the decision, not some randoms pulled in off the street!

What's the point of contracts (or "montracts", as Quincy calls them!), if vultures can cream off whatever they want, regardless?
 
The partial verdict form was added to the court system yesterday. I did a post about the jury's answers on the verdict form on my blog if anyone interested.

Overall interesting findings are

- jury agreed that quincy has the right to have the first opportunity to remix, he didn't waive this right and he wasn't offered this right.

- quincy's expert report said the damages for the first right to remix was $4,845,000. 57 remixes at $85,000 per song remix fee. Jury awarded like 1/3rd of it.

- to me personally the most interesting thing is the 2009 JV. Jury awarded Quincy $5.3 million from joint venture profits. I can't wrap my head around that one.
 
Thanks ivy

Was jones given first refusal for eg the remix series during the history campaign..if not why no complaint then
 
Last edited:
^^

In his deposition he said he was never asked to remix. So no he wasn't. That's why there was a question asked if Quincy waved his right to remix. Jury said no.

It's a really subjective decision. Like you said one might argue given that he didn't complain in the past, he waived his right. Apparently jury thought otherwise.
 
Thanks ivy so why didnt he sue in 95. Surly what the contract says should be it cut and dry with Something like that.if not someone did a really bad job. Makes no sense as jones is hardly david morales.its not like he even wrote the biggest songs so felt they were his. (He does out of arrogance)
 
I suspect that Jones wasn't aware of his rights until recently and that's why he didn't complain in '95 or at any other time. By his own admission he didn't read the contracts himself.
 
Then he should sue his lawyers .the contract should be pretty black and white and what about statue of limitations for 95.gone?
 
One of the most famous dance DJ,remixers of his generation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top