Latest on MJJC

Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

When this first started, I thought it was odd that Quincy had this right in his contract forever and forever and forever. What happens after he dies? His heirs also have the right? I'm sure it's this clause that has started this fight and the Estate wants that to end.

Also odd because he seemed on good terms with the Estate since he showed up at the Cirque hand/footprint ceremony. TII had already happened and the Cirque show had just started the tour.
Either somebody put this in his head or he decided to figure out how to get a piece of the pie.
 
Galactus123 said:
I hope he gets money that belongs to him but it doesn't sounds right that he has to be offered first to remix the songs. If the contract doesn't say that then Estate is going to win.
Click to expand...


right... does the contract state that? I am sure it doesn't and that's why it's going to trial
 
Quincy Jones' Lawsuit Against Michael Jackson's Estate Is Heating Up


The case is heading to trial.



By Evelyn Diaz
Posted: 02/27/2016 03:30 PM EST

Filed Under Quincy Jones, Celebrity News, Michael Jackson, michael jackson estate, Lawsuit



022716-celebs-quincy-michaeljackson.jpg





Quincy Jones filed a lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate on Friday, seeking millions of dollars in royalties from projects that were released after the pop star’s death. Jones is claiming that the way Jackson’s music was utilized in the This Is It film and soundtrack, as well as Jackson’s Cirque du Soleil productions, and 25th anniversary of Bad breached the contract between Jones and Jackson. Sony Music Entertainment and Epic Records were also named in the suit.

The music legend's claim stems from his belief that master recordings of songs he worked on were remixed and altered in order to evade paying Jones profits that he would have been owed under the agreements he signed with Jackson in the 1970s and 1980s. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Jones says that under those contracts, he should have been offered the initial opportunity to edit or mix any of the master recordings, and that he was entitled to a producer credit for the master recording, and any additional compensation if those masters were remixed.

Jones is seeking at least $10 million in damages for the breach, and also wants compensation for unpaid royalties, remixing fees, and compensation for the loss of credit. Jones’ attorney Henry Gradstein told THR, “Quincy has been frustrated with these matters for a number of years, felt he was not making any progress and need to take more formal action.”

Howard Weitzman, representing the Jackson estate, released a statement in response to the lawsuit. “The estate of Michael Jackson was saddened to learn that Quincy Jones has filed a lawsuit seeking money from Michael’s estate,” it read. “To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Jones has been appropriately compensated for over approximately 35 years of work with Michael.”

As recently as 10 weeks ago, Jones tweeted a picture to his Instagram, commemorating Thriller going 30X multi-platinum, saying, “Miss you Smelly, but I bet you’re up there celebrating by teaching everyone the Thriller dance!”





Jones produced three of Jackson’s biggest solo albums, Off the Wall in 1979, Thriller in 1982, and Bad in 1987. Recently, Jones was honored by BET as an ICON MANN, one of the 28 men awarded for being men of change.
Click to expand...

http://www.bet.com/news/music/2016/...t-michael-jackson-s-estate-is-heating-up.html
 
What quincy is forgetting he may be the producer but ITS MJ'S WORK!!! It's mjs voice on those albums and michael did write some songs on those albums , so imo he doesnt "own" all those albums
 
redfrog said:
So Gradstein's lawfirm wants to profit from MJ's musical legacy while at the same time trying to destroy his legacy and profit from that too. Isn't it rich?

And 10 million for Q? Ridiculous. He needs to take a seat.
Click to expand...
Ironic, isn't it?? If 2 of their clients win, there won't be a legacy or money and therefore nothing now or in the future for the 3rd client (who might really have a case).

8701girl said:
What quincy is forgetting he may be the producer but ITS MJ'S WORK!!! It's mjs voice on those albums and Michael did write some songs on those albums , so imo he doesnt "own" all those albums
Click to expand...
Quincy is not saying he owns those albums. He's saying his original contracts with Michael provide him with certain rights that he was not given when they remixed the tracks for TII, Cirque or Bad 25. This is just contract law. Lots of money at stake here, tho.
 
Putting everythibg else aside it makes no logic for this sort of contract to excist (have they shown it) anyway. When was jones ever a remixer like i dunno all those dance artists/remixers who worked on the history remix series (why didnt he sue over them btw) i can really see an O.A.P doing a banging club remix of mjs songs. It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic
 
Imo, Jones would earn much more than 10 million if works with the Estate and there would be no damage for his reputation. I know after all, I won’t take his serious ever again.

I understand that maybe he tried to be part of Estate past projects and was not invited but The Estate only at the beginning of understanding what they can do…
It is obvious that Jones lost his chance to be part of Off The Wall documentary.
 
another delay. Case is now set for october

09/13/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference(DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

10/11/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
 
I was watching segments of the Mexico deposition and I just realize they had MJ read his contract with Quincy from 1978. From around 2:17:00 you can see him reading a part which may be the basis of Quincy's complaint now.

 
I watch the video and the picture is very clear now Michael said it himself he was reading the contract between him and Quincy and it said either him or Quincy have a say on any remix or changes of songs on the albums. I really did not notice that in the video until now. If you go back to post 3 in this thread you will see why Quincy is filing this lawsuit.


So there was a contract that said that.
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
I was watching segments of the Mexico deposition and I just realize they had MJ read his contract with Quincy from 1978. From around 2:17:00 you can see him reading a part which may be the basis of Quincy's complaint now.

Click to expand...


awwww, so now it's starting to click......so Quincy wasn't just blowing smoke
 
Bringing Brighter Days said:
awwww, so now it's starting to click......so Quincy wasn't just blowing smoke
Click to expand...

It depends on what the Estate/Sony actually did or did not do.

Anyway, my only problem with his lawsuit is that he uses the same lawyers as backstabber Wade Robson, who seem to be amublance chasers, to be honest.
 
I don`t know but I would think it is a bit silly if Estate would so open breach a contract in front of Quincy eyes and Quincy waiting years to sue it. If it were this easy I think Estate wolud have long settle it. Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
Annita;4149909 said:
I don`t know but I would think it is a bit silly if Estate would so open breach a contract in front of Quincy eyes and Quincy waiting years to sue it. If it were this easy I think Estate wolud have long settle it. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Yes, just because there is such a paragraph in the contract it does not mean Quincy is right. To know that we should know what the Estate did or did not do exactly to fulfill that paragraph. Although in the article that I quoted earlier on the previous page Weitzman doesn't seem to address what Quincy is actually complaining about:

Howard Weitzman, representing the Jackson estate, released a statement in response to the lawsuit. “The estate of Michael Jackson was saddened to learn that Quincy Jones has filed a lawsuit seeking money from Michael’s estate,” it read. “To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Jones has been appropriately compensated for over approximately 35 years of work with Michael.”
Click to expand...

The lawsuit is not about being paid for the 35 years of work with MJ. It's about whether the Estate asked for Quincy's permission for projects AFTER MJ's death. It has nothing really to do with MJ personally.

But I do wonder if while MJ was alive that first right to remix was always offered to Quincy. Apparently it was because Quincy doesn't complain about the time period when MJ was alive. I also wonder what about when Quincy remixed MJ songs for his own albums. Did he ask for MJ's permission? On his 1995 Q's Jook Joint album there is a version of Rock with You with Brandy and Heavy D. On his 2010 Q Soul Bossa Nostra album there is a version of P.Y.T with T-Pain and Robin Thicke. Though these are not songs written by MJ, so maybe he did not need MJ's (or in case of the 2010 album the Estate's) permission for these. And even if he did MJ probably did not have a problem with giving a permission. In the album booklet of Q's Jook Joint there is a dedication to MJ and Lisa Marie. It seems to me during MJ's lifetime this wasn't a problem, only after his death.

Also this seems to suggest Quincy reached out to the Estate about it in informal ways but they did not give him what he wanted:

Jones is seeking at least $10 million in damages for the breach, and also wants compensation for unpaid royalties, remixing fees, and compensation for the loss of credit. Jones’ attorney Henry Gradstein told THR, “Quincy has been frustrated with these matters for a number of years, felt he was not making any progress and need to take more formal action.”
Click to expand...

Probably this is not as straightforward as it seems, because if there was a clear contractual obligation I don't see the Estate deliberately violating it. Nor do I see them willing to go to trial with this instead of a settlement if they did not feel they had something in their hand about it. But we will see.
 
Last edited:
For me it seems form what Ivy posted about Estate-answer it seems it did happen all the time.

Estate actually did their initial answer to Quincy Jones complait a short while ago. In the answer they deny Quincy Jones claims and list the following affirmative defenses :

- failure to state a cause of action
- lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- federal preemption (US Copyright act 17 U.S.C. 301) - unclean hands
- estoppel
- laches
- waiver -
prevention / frustration of performance
failure to mitigate damages
failure to submit creditor's claim
- statue of limitations
 
Last edited:
My questions would be was Quincy aware that there was going to made changes to the songs on the albums? Did the Estate/Sony contact him? Respect77 you make a good point too it really does depend on what Estate/Sony did or did not do and that we do not know.

This video just may be apart of Quincy defense who know.

I also notice in the video how Michael said he has sign so many papers that are put in front of he can't not remember half of them.
(shaking my head)
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
But I do wonder if while MJ was alive that first right to remix was always offered to Quincy. Apparently it was because Quincy doesn't complain about the time period when MJ was alive. I also wonder what about when Quincy remixed MJ songs for his own albums. Did he ask for MJ's permission? On his 1995 Q's Jook Joint album there is a version of Rock with You with Brandy and Heavy D. On his 2010 Q Soul Bossa Nostra album there is a version of P.Y.T with T-Pain and Robin Thicke. Though these are not songs written by MJ, so maybe he did not need MJ's (or in case of the 2010 album the Estate's) permission for these. And even if he did MJ probably did not have a problem with giving a permission. In the album booklet of Q's Jook Joint there is a dedication to MJ and Lisa Marie. It seems to me during MJ's lifetime this wasn't a problem, only after his death.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that remix might not only apply to traditional remixing as we're thinking (i.e. those Akon/Fergie/Kanye West remixes on Thriller 25). It could also apply to them literally just going back to the original multitracks and altering the mix for something different. Sort of like what they did with Bad! A year or two after it's release MJ and them went back into the studio and remixed a few songs, took some trumpets out of Bad (bar the final chorus), remixed some of the instruments on Smooth Criminal, etc etc. That sort of re-mixing!
 
When Michael was here there was no problem in remix these songs like it was mention but now that Michael is gone Quincy feel that the Estate needing to get his permission to remix these songs now he want to get paid because he felt let out. It all about the money.
 
I'm sure a legal advisor told him he could have a good shot with this lawsuit and that's where it came about.. Otherwise we would have heard about this sooner..
 
Bringing Brighter Days said:
awwww, so now it's starting to click......so Quincy wasn't just blowing smoke
Click to expand...
Well, I think it's cut and dried that it's in his original contract about the masters.

Most of the animosity in this thread stems from him using Gradstein for his atty and he called Michael a monster.
Quincy also said a few things that are unforgettable.

I'm wondering about the 2nd part of the lawsuit. When Michael got his master recordings back, did he put them in his own company, so the contract with Epic and Quincy became null and void? (At least in the Estates eyes).
 
barbee0715 said:
Well, I think it's cut and dried that it's in his original contract about the masters.

Most of the animosity in this thread stems from him using Gradstein for his atty and he called Michael a monster.
Quincy also said a few things that are unforgettable.

I'm wondering about the 2nd part of the lawsuit. When Michael got his master recordings back, did he put them in his own company, so the contract with Epic and Quincy became null and void? (At least in the Estates eyes).
Click to expand...



You make a good point in the bold if Michael did do that then the Estate would not have to get permission from Quincy to remix the songs from the albums because Michael owns his masters.
 
If the suit was cut and dried then the estate. Would have settled. They have had no problem settling legitimate claims in the past. They obviously feel they have legitimate reasons to fight it. So I'll wait and see on this.

And jones hiring that scummy lawyer and as others said the things jones has said against mj in the past are of course going to cause people who care, love and support mj to be even more defensive than normal when it comes to filed lawsuits
 
elusive moonwalker said:
If the suit was cut and dried then the estate. Would have settled. They have had no problem settling legitimate claims in the past. They obviously feel they have legitimate reasons to fight it. So I'll wait and see on this.
Click to expand...
Thats why I'm wondering about the contract being null and void now.

And jones hiring that scummy lawyer and as others said the things jones has said against mj in the past are of course going to cause people who care, love and support mj to be even more defensive than normal when it comes to filed lawsuits
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I agree barbee if the contract is null and void the Estate does have the right to fight it. I first believe Quincy was a all right guys but i guess when it come to money ppls change
 
This case is getting closer to trial and they are in the phase where they deciding jury instructions.

09/06/2016 Statement of Case (JOINT )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/06/2016 List of Witnesses (JOINT )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/06/2016 Jury Instructions (DISPUTED [PROPOSED] JURY INSTRUCTIONS )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/06/2016 Jury Instructions ([PROPOSED] DISPUTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/06/2016 Miscellaneous-Other (JOINT STATEMENT OF COUNSEL RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO. 1 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/06/2016 Jury Instructions (JOINT [PROPOSED] JURY INSTRUCTIONS )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

09/06/2016 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/06/2016 Supplemental Declaration (IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/06/2016 Reply/Response (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE EQUITABLE AND LEGAL CLAIMS OR ALTERNATIVELY LIABILITY AND DAMAGES PHASES OF TRIAL )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

09/06/2016 List of Exhibits (JOINT )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr


Future Hearings

09/13/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference(DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE/MOTION IN LIMINE)

10/11/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
 
Things are heating up in this case
Future Hearings

09/27/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion Hearing(BY PLAINTIFF TO HOLDDEFENDANT MJJ IN CONTEMPT)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top