Latest on MJJC

Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

Home » Hollywood » This Article

‘Thriller’ vs. ‘Billie Jean’: Judge admits he can’t tell one Michael Jackson song from the other as Quincy Jones sues an MJ company

A judge said Wednesday that videos to be played during the upcoming trial of producer Quincy Jones’ multimillion-dollar breach-of-contract lawsuit against one of Michael Jackson’s companies will be his introduction to some of the late singer’s biggest hits.

“It will be the first time I’ve heard most of the music,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern said. “I may be the only one in the room who can’t differentiate between `Thriller’ and …”

Stern did not finish the sentence, but Jones’ lawyer, J. Michael Hennigan, stepped into the conversation and said, “Billie Jean.”

“You’re right, I can’t,” Stern said during a status conference before trial of Jones’ lawsuit against MJJ Productions Inc.

Jones produced “Thriller” and co-produced “Billie Jean” with Jackson.

After another hearing on June 29, trial of the case will go forward as scheduled on July 10, Stern said.

Among the allegations in Jones’ suit against MJJ Productions are that royalties from the film “This is It” were allegedly disguised as profits and diverted to three Jackson estate entities: the Michael Jackson Co., MJJ Ventures and Triumph International.

“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 rehearsing 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. Sunday is the eighth anniversary of his death.


Jones, now 84, also alleges that master recordings he worked on were wrongfully edited and remixed so as to deprive him of bonus profits. The 28-time Grammy winner also maintains he was denied credit for his work on the singer’s works released after his death.

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 he was to be given producer credit for each of the master recordings.

Jones filed the lawsuit in October 2013.
 
OnirMJ said:
I'm starting to really hate that old fart.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. 10 million dollars? Ridiculous. And to think that Mj's biggest
hits were 80% ready for prime time even before they reached Quincy.
 
Hasn't Quincy been receiving his share of royalties? Does he want more? Does he have money problems? And why did he wait so long if he wasn't receiving royalties?

More importantly, shouldn't Epic Records (or Sony) be giving Quincy his royalties?
 
This just hit my news feed. I'm not a subscriber, so I don't have the full article, but looks like Quincy can't claim elder abuse, at least.

https://www.law360.com/media/articles/942382

[h=1]Quincy Jones Can’t Claim Abuse In Jackson Royalty Row[/h]By Bonnie Eslinger
Law360, Los Angeles (July 7, 2017, 6:39 PM EDT) -- Days before the trial over whether Michael Jackson’s production company shortchanged Quincy Jones on $10 million-plus in royalties, a California judge ruled Friday that the 84-year-old Grammy-winning music producer can't now raise allegations that he was also the victim of financial elder abuse.

With the trial in the high-profile royalty row scheduled to start on Monday, defendant MJJ Productions Inc. sought a ruling from the court to exclude evidence and argument at trial from Jones of purported elder abuse and concealment, arguing the suit was only...
To view the full article, register now.
 
:blink: :blink: Why on earth would quincy claim "elder financial abuse???.............he is not related to michael or anyone in the jackson family..........this isnt katherine jackson / trent situation......
 
8701girl said:
:blink: :blink: Why on earth would quincy claim "elder financial abuse???.............he is not related to michael or anyone in the jackson family..........this isnt katherine jackson / trent situation......
Click to expand...
That means he claims he was taken advantage of or "abused" in this financial deal because he was elderly. There's all kinds of elder abuse.
 
full article

Quincy Jones Can’t Claim Abuse In Jackson Royalty Row
By Bonnie Eslinger

Law360, Los Angeles (July 7, 2017, 6:39 PM EDT) -- Days before the trial over whether Michael Jackson’s production company shortchanged Quincy Jones on $10 million-plus in royalties, a California judge ruled Friday that the 84-year-old Grammy-winning music producer can't now raise allegations that he was also the victim of financial elder abuse.
With the trial in the high-profile royalty row scheduled to start on Monday, defendant MJJ Productions Inc. sought a ruling from the court to exclude evidence and argument at trial from Jones of purported elder abuse and concealment, arguing the suit was only over causes of action for breach of contract. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern told the parties in court on Friday that at this point in the proceedings to assert those claims would be inappropriate.

“At the present time, there’s no cause of action for elder abuse, it shouldn’t be mentioned,” the judge said.

Jones argued that the claims for financial elder abuse and concealment are based on the same evidence that will prove Jones’ breach of contract claims.

“Every claim that we would make under elder abuse is a claim that we are making under the contract claim. There’s no evidence that would be additive or irrelevant,” Jones’ attorney, Michael Hennigan of McKool Smith PC, told the court. “The contract claims deal with the taking of Quincy Jones money, the secreting of it and other corporations, the refusal to account for it, etc. All of that is part of the contract claims.”

In its filing to the court opposing MJJ Productions’ motion to exclude claims for financial elder abuse, Jones asserted that California allows a party to amend a complaint after trial if proof of a cause of action has been presented — an argument Judge Stern appeared to acknowledge on Friday.

“It’s too late to amend the complaint at this juncture,” the judge told Jones’ counsel. “You can raise another argument later, after the evidence part ... I’ll listen. They’ll oppose undoubtedly ... For now, the motion is granted as presently presented.”

A few minutes later, the judge added that when Jones appears in court, claims related to his age might not need to be underscored.

“We’re aware that plaintiff is old, he’s over 80 years old,” the judge said. “That will be self evident on its face.”

Another attorney for Jones, Mike McKool of McKool Smith PC, told the court evidence presented at trial would show that royalties due to the producer were concealed by MJJ Productions.

The judge said fraud and concealment were not part of the case.

Jones’ suit alleges that MJJ, which is controlled by Jackson's estate, and Sony cheated him out of royalties for the soundtrack to "This Is It" — the documentary about the King of Pop released just months after Jackson's 2009 death — and the Cirque du Soleil show featuring music from three Jackson albums Jones produced: "Off the Wall," "Thriller" and "Bad."

Jones worked with Jackson from 1978 to the late '80s and the three albums at issue were among Jackson's most successful, according to the producer's suit.

The 27-time Grammy winner said that with each project, he entered into a contract with MJJ for royalties on the use of the songs and to protect the songs from being edited or remixed without his express approval and supervision, according to the suit. After Jackson's death, the flurry of productions created to capitalize on the renewed interest in the King of Pop breached those contracts, Jones alleges.

MJJ released soundtracks to support the Cirque du Soleil production created in Jackson's honor and for the "This Is It" film, which went on to become the highest-grossing music documentary of all time. But MJJ distributed the albums on its own label, not through Sony, to avoid paying royalties to the producer, Jones alleges.

Additionally, the tracks were edited for the film, something Jones says is explicitly prohibited by his contract, which requires that any editing or remixing be done by Jones himself.

Jones is seeking damages for breach of contract claims, for remixing fees he claims he would have been paid if he had been engaged to remix the masters in the various projects, the "value" of the resulting producer credit and unpaid royalties on the masters he claims were copied without his consent.

Judge Stern ruled in November that Sony would be a nonparticipant in the trial on the two causes of action in Jones’ suit for breach of contract. Sony is not named as a defendant on those counts, but is named on a third count for an accounting of how much was made by MJJ, Sony and the other companies involved in distributing the soundtracks.

Last month, an attorney for Sony, Jonathan M. Sperling of Covington & Burling LLP, argued against jury instructions proposed by Jones that he said wrongly implicate Sony.

“We were more than a little bit surprised to see plaintiff's special instruction number one, which proposes to instruct the jury that they can make a finding as to whether plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between Michael Jackson and Sony,” Sperling said. “We don’t think that belongs.”

Quincy Jones is represented by Mike McKool, J. Michael Hennigan, Robert E. Allen and Caroline M. Walters of McKool Smith PC and Henry Gradstein and Maryann R. Marzano of Gradstein & Marzano PC.

MJJ Productions Inc is represented by Tami Kameda Sims and Zia F. Modabber of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Howard Weitzman and Jonathan Steinsapir of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP.

The case is Quincy Jones et al. v. MJJ Productions Inc. et al., case number BC525803, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

--Additional reporting by Vin Gurrieri, Kat Greene and Brandon Lowrey. Editing by Alyssa Miller.
 
barbee0715 said:
That means he claims he was taken advantage of or "abused" in this financial deal because he was elderly. There's all kinds of elder abuse.
Click to expand...


:lol: :lol: um sorry but thats laughable! so either hes asscusing mj or the estate of "financial abuse"??...... still i mean really??!!!
 
BtW Jones will be appear next Sunday July 16th in Stuttgart to the jazz-open.
 
I wonder why there is no report from the trial start. Did nothing happen yesterday in court?
 
Quincy Jones Claims He’s Owed $30 Million From Michael Jackson Recordings

Quincy Jones is owed about $30 million in unpaid royalties from Michael Jackson’s estate, the veteran producer’s attorney told a jury on Tuesday.

Attorney Mike McKool delivered his opening argument in the trial, which is now underway in Los Angeles Superior Court. McKool said that before Jackson’s death in 2009, Jones had received his customary royalties from producing three albums: “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” and “Bad.”

But, McKool argued that that changed when Jackson died and the singer’s estate took control of his finances. Jackson’s death brought a surge of interest in his catalog, and the estate reaped an increased share of the royalties from his hit songs. But Jones was not allowed to share in the bounty, McKool contended, and indeed was not even informed of the increased royalties until after filing suit in 2013.

“He hasn’t been adjusted as Michael was adjusted,” McKool told the jury.

McKool also contends that Jones was shorted on his share of the profits from “This Is It,” the behind-the-scenes concert documentary released after Jackson’s death. McKool said the film made use of Jackson’s original recordings, but that Jones was not given an adequate share of the licensing fee. McKool said the film grossed more than $500 million, of which the estate took $90 million, but that Jones was paid only $455,000.

Zia Modabber, the attorney for Jackson’s estate, countered in his opening argument that Jones has been richly rewarded for his producing work even after Jackson’s death.

“We believe the evidence will show that Mr. Jones is not entitled to anything but a fraction of the money he’s after,” Modabber said. Since Jackson’s death, he said, “Mr. Jones has been paid over $18 million, and he will make millions more.”

Modabber showed the jury a 10-minute clip of “This Is It” before the trial broke for lunch.
 
Quincy Jones Faces Off With Michael Jackson's Company in Jury Trial
The trial pits a dead music legend against a living one in what a potential juror described as "a tragedy."

"Both of these men are musical geniuses," said one potential juror of Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones. "I am so, so sorry this trial is going on. This is a tragedy."

The retired University of Pennsylvania professor was thanked for her time and excused from an Los Angeles courtroom Tuesday morning. Also excused was a young woman whose father was an editor on the "Thriller" music video. Ultimately two men and 10 women were chosen — and they're tasked with evaluating how credit and money should be split for posthumous revenue as part of a royalty dispute between the legendary producer and the King of Pop's business.

By way of background, this fight began in 2013 when Jones sued Sony Entertainment and MJJ Productions, a song company controlled by the King of Pop's estate, claiming master recordings he produced were wrongfully edited and remixed to deprive him of backend profit participation. He also says a 2009 joint venture between MJJ and Sony should have increased his royalties share, but didn't. The works at issue include songs from Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad and the This Is It film and soundtrack album, among others.

Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michael A. Stern in January shut down MJJ's summary judgment motion, finding the complex issues in the case warranted more scrutiny. (Stern also denied a previous motion for summary judgment in February 2016.) The jury won't hear about Jones' elder abuse claims, which were barred following a pre-trial motion.

Jones' attorney Mike McKool led off opening statements Tuesday by painting a picture of the producer's illustrious career — aided by actual photos projected onto a very large screen in the middle of the courtroom that largely blocked the view for attorneys and journalists in the audience. He noted Jones' EGOT status, coupled with 79 Grammy nominations, and walked through some of his work with A-list artists like Frank Sinatra, who gave Jones his nickname "Q."

Aside from personal history, McKool focused on two producer agreements between the pair, one from 1978 and the other from 1985. He says those agreements specified that Jones' royalty would come from Jackson's share of profits from their works — and that any changes to the rate the performer received would be reflected in the producer's pay, too. McKool said the deals also ensured Jones would be given the first opportunity to remix any of the works he produced.

Everything was going smoothly, McKool said, until the star died unexpectedly in 2009. "The death of a superstar artist creates huge interest in his music," he said, adding that the boost in demand from fans allowed Jackson's estate to negotiate a bigger share of Sony's profits. Jones' royalties remained consistent, and McKool argued they should have increased proportionally. All said, Jones says he's owed at least $30 million.

MJJ attorney Zia Modabber took the podium shortly before the lunch recess, and acknowledged that an audit did reveal Jones was shorted — but only a fraction of the amount he's asking for. He said Jones' contract doesn't entitle him to a share of the licensing fees, when his works are featured in movies, for example, but Jackson paid him one anyway and the estate continues that practice.

As to the claims about the 2009 Sony joint venture, Modabber said Jones' contract specifies that his royalty pay is "calculated, prorated and reduced" in accordance with Jackson's — but the artist wasn't obligated to even tell the producer about royalty increases, let alone pass them on to the producer. He also said Jones was only guaranteed the first opportunity to remix a work if that remix was required by the studio.

Sony has been administering the producer's pay from Jackson's works since the beginning and any money owed to Jones is due to run-of-the-mill mistakes that happen while calculating complex royalties, Modabber said — arguing the producer's claims rely on "distorted" readings of the contracts and conspiracy theories.

"Sadly, and unfortunately for us, you will only be getting Mr. Jones' version," said Modabber, playing on a sentiment mentioned by several axed jurors that Jackson's death makes the testimony one-sided. "Mr. Jones is asking for millions he didn't earn and isn't entitled to. He just wants it and hopes you'll give it to him."

The trial is expected to last approximately three weeks. MJJ is represented by Kinsella Weitzman and Katten Muchin Rosenman. Jones is represented by Gradstein Marzano and McKool Smith. Sony is represented by Covington & Burling.
 
after lunch break

Following the lunch break, Modabber concluded his opening argument by contending that Jones was properly paid, and is not owed additional money from Sony’s joint venture with Jackson.

“He didn’t get paid any of the money Michael was going to get because he didn’t do any of the work,” Modabber said. “Mr. Jones is asking for tens and tens of millions of dollars. He just wants it and he hopes you will give it to him.”

John Branca, Jackson’s longtime attorney and now the co-executor of his estate, was the first witness. Under questioning from Jones’ lawyer, Branca said the estate had offered Jones $2 million to $3 million to settle the case, which is what he believed Jones is owed.

Branca and Jones’ lawyer sparred over the definition of a “videoshow” in Jones’ contract, with Branca claiming it pertained to music videos and not to movies such as “This Is It” or life performances such as Cirque du Soleil.

“It was never our practice to cheat … Mr. Jones,” Branca testified, as the debate became heated. “You’re creating a false impression.”

Branca acknowledged that the estate had erred by failing to give Jones a credit for “This Is It.”

The trial is expected to last about three weeks. Jones will likely testify next week.
 
Doesnt help that they admit he is owed some money.

Didnt realise care home fees cost so much in america
 
No it just ppls want to live without having any money problems that what Quincy Jones want. He must of ran out of money too.
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker;4199950 said:
Doesnt help that they admit he is owed some money.
Click to expand...

It´s a big difference to offer Jones 3 miilions because of mistakes and Jones saying he is owed 30 millions.

I don`t know but aren`t you thinking it is likely the Estate would have give him ithe 30 miilinons in a private settlement rather than going through a public trial endig loosing it and have to pay it to Jones anyway. I don`t think they go in this trial if they are not thinking they have a great chance to win.

But we will see.
 
Oh yeah i certainly agree re the figure but to me id be thinking the estate would be abit slap dash if they are admitting yes we do owe him money and sorry we didnt credit him on TII. So are they hiding anything else interms of what they really owe him
 
We'll, I know for a fact that Branca renegotiated Michael's royalty rate after OTW and again after Thriller. And they probably did so many times. Since they did it again in 2009, that may be where the 3 million comes from. It sounds like they kept Quincy at the old rate.

I don't remember where they used Quincy's stuff in TII-I've only seen it once. Or are they talking about the album?
 
It's not only that Quincy became just another leech he is doing it with the help of those
who called MJ a monster:

Quincy Jones Faces Off With Michael Jackson's Company in Jury Trial, Says he's owed at least $30 millon


Jones is represented by Gradstein Marzano and McKool Smith. Sony is represented by Covington & Burling.

http://www.lipstickalley.com/showth...s-Thread-V?p=31581640&viewfull=1#post31581640

Why is it that people have no conscience when it comes to MJ?


"Sadly, and unfortunately for us, you will only be getting Mr. Jones' version," said Modabber, playing on a sentiment mentioned by several axed jurors that Jackson's death makes the testimony one-sided. "Mr. Jones is asking for millions he didn't earn and isn't entitled to. He just wants it and hopes you'll give it to him."


Which is why Quincy dares to do this in the first place. Sure his lawyers know how to attack the defenseless.
 
Last edited:
In Quincy Jones Trial, Expert Critiques Pitbull's Version of Michael Jackson's 'Bad'


•NEWS
•LEGAL AND MANAGEMENT

By Justino Aguilar | July 14, 2017 10:10 PM EDT








Pitbull is no Michael Jackson.

That was the gist of the expert testimony that highlighted the fourth day of the trial that pits legendary producer Quincy Jones against the Michael Jackson estate, with Jones claiming that the late King of Pop’s estate breached its contract with him and owes him millions of dollars in royalties from works that include songs from the albums Thriller, Off the Wall, This Is It and Bad.

Jones had sued the Jackson estate and Sony Music Entertainment in 2013, alleging that songs such as "Billie Jean," ''Thriller" and "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" were re-edited to cut him out of royalties and a producer's fee. The suit also claimed that Jones’ contracts gave him the first opportunity to re-edit or alter the songs, partly to protect his reputation.

On Friday, Jones’ legal team called Michael Fremer, editor of AnalogPlanet.com, to the stand, in hopes of establishing that some of Jackson’s posthumously released remixes -- issued without Jones’ permission -- had diminished Jones' reputation due to their mediocrity.

Read more: Quincy Jones Faces Off With Michael Jackson's Company in Jury Trial

"I like club mixes," Fremer told the court, but Afrojack’s 2012 remix of Jackson’s "Bad," featuring Pitbull, is "inconsistent with his spirit and who he was."

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern, though, later excluded Fremer's testimony from the case after conferring privately with both legal teams.

After his testimony, Fremer told Billboard that he was “so against” the remix featuring Pitbull.

“Whomever produced it [the Pitbull version] should have said, 'No.' Before the trial I did some research and the comments online were really negative about that song. People were outraged. It was just a mess and it should have never come out."

Fremer testified that he never met Jackson and does not know Jones. The Afrojack-Pitbull rework of “Bad” peaked at No. 18 on Dance Club Songs and No. 45 on Dance/Electronic Digital Songs and sold 19,000 digital downloads in the U.S., according to Nielsen Music. The song also generated 2.2 million on-demand streams -- audio and video combined -- in the U.S.

Read more: Michael Jackson Auction to Include Album With Nine Unreleased Songs

During Friday's trial, which concluded by mid-afternoon, the jurors consisting of mostly women and two men also got to hear and watch a clip of the film This Is It, on which Jones is seeking credit and royalties. The clip showed Jackson in rehearsals for the "The Way You Make Me Feel."

Jackson's distinctive vocals lit up the room. Jurors sat mostly stoic, but a few of them showed emotion including a male who was all smiles during the portion of the song, while another female juror closed her eyes and listened intently to the music and lyrics. Even attorney Howard Weitzman, representing Jackson’s MJJ Productions, was seen slightly bopping his head to the music.

By the session's end on Friday, Stern instructed the jurors to return on Monday and informed them that the trial, which was expected to last 3 weeks, may conclude by the end of next week, one week earlier than originally anticipated.

According to a court spokesperson, no witnesses are scheduled for Monday.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/article...iques-pitbulls
 
That's a pretty good argument. If the Pitbull version was the only one you ever heard, you'd say it was mediocre.
Wonder why his testimony was excluded after he gave it.
 
The only persons reputation it would diminish would be the artist the one who decided to go ahead with it in the first place or is Q so up his own ass that the first person joe blow thinks of when hearing a mj remix is him instead of mj.joe blow wouldnt even think Q was connected to it in anyway or would or wouldnt have had any say. And thats if they even know or care about Q been involved in the original.i certainly doubt they would think he had anything to do with a current release.
 
I actally loved that pitbull mix!!!........honsetly imo quincy still thinks its the 80's......... funny how ppl used to say the same thing bout mj and give him ish for it but since its quincy its "ok" SMH
 
barbee0715 said:
That's a pretty good argument. If the Pitbull version was the only one you ever heard, you'd say it was mediocre.
Wonder why his testimony was excluded after he gave it.
Click to expand...

I guess it was excluded because of it really not being something to base a case on? I find it weird to call a music critic to give his thoughts on a song. The Estate could easily find another music critic who thinks 'Pitbull did an excellent job with the track'.

I think it's a ridiculous argument that a remix of Bad diminished Quincy's reputation. If somebody has only ever heard the Pitbull remix of Bad, then I doubt very much they even know who Quincy Jones is.
 
8701girl said:
I actally loved that pitbull mix!!!........honsetly imo quincy still thinks its the 80's......... funny how ppl used to say the same thing bout mj and give him ish for it but since its quincy its "ok" SMH
Click to expand...

I like the remix without Pitbull. I never even ripped the Pitbull version off the CD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top