Industry Liabilities Blog

 The first incident I’ll choose to address is the recent issue surrounding The Beach Boys. Now, anyone who’s seen CNN lately is probably aware that the legendary rock band is on the verge of a breakup – again. What many people may not know is why. According to Spin, during the late 90’s there was a series of litigation, which culminated in band member, Mike Love, owning the rights to The Beach Boys name. Recently, Love has decided to exercise his rights and tour without the remaining band members. At the conclusion of the current 50-year anniversary tour, he will be continue to perform as “The Beach Boys,” but will do so with a completely new lineup. From the outside looking in, one might view Mike Love’s action as disloyal and divisive but regardless of his motivations, it is possible that this course of action may allow the Beach Boys to transcend the personas of the individual band members. This unfortunate turn of events could lead to The Beach Boys having longevity similar to that of the Temptations.

Next on this list is infamous rock drummer, Motley Crue’s Tommy Lee. In this case, a Los Angeles engineer is suing the group for allegedly stealing his idea for a 360° rotating drum rig. According to TMZ, an engineer named Scott King sent Motley Crue’s legal team a cease and desist letter concerning this issue. The letter alleged that Mr. King had approached Tommy Lee twenty years earlier with the idea for the rotational drum rig. The engineer now claims that he’s entitled to some sort of monetary compensation. The big question in this case will be whether the engineer has a patent on this idea. The old adage is that the law isn’t about what really happened, but what can be proven. If this engineer actually has a patent on this idea, then he stands a much greater chance of winning this case (if this case actually goes to trial). If he doesn’t, then his assertion that Tommy Lee stole his idea will be much harder to prove. Unlike copyrights, patents aren’t automatic. Even if his idea was made tangible prior to the idea being stolen, this may not be enough to convince a jury that the idea was stolen. Even if the idea was stolen, does it really matter if the idea wasn’t patented? Stealing an unpatented idea certainly is unethical, but unless it’s a trade secret with applicable non-disclosure agreements, there isn’t much that can be done about it.

For the last incident, we’ll address the curious case of the ever-ubiquitous Mr. Kanye West. In this particular exploit, Mr. West is being sued for copyright infringement – yes, again. In this particular case, he is being sued by Mr. Robert Poindexter. For those who are unaware, Mr. Poindexter is part of a writing team responsible for numerous soul songs, and their subsequent modern derivatives. One of these songs was a single from 1972 entitled, “Trying Girls Out.” According to Rolling Stone, Mr. Poindexter is seeking $500,000 in damages for Mr. West’s sampling of the single on a mixtape recently released. What makes this case even more interesting is the fact that Mr. West sampled the same song on track he produced earlier in his career. The difference is that Mr. West had the proper clearance to perform this earlier sampling. Now, I should probably point out the fact that many who would consider themselves part of the hip-hop culture will have a very different view of this act than those who are part of the legal community, or even those who understand copyright law. Many in the hip-hop community feel that sampling is just part of business as usual, and even more feel that sampling is acceptable if it is for mixtape use. Anyone who understands copyright law knows that copyright holders have the right to determine who can and can’t derive from and distribute their work. It’s a simple as that. If this issue ends up going to court, Mr. West is already in a bad position. The fact that he sampled the same track earlier in the proper manner doesn’t make his situation look any better. Unless there is a clause in the original sampling contract that allows for subsequent samples, expect this to go in the favor of the plaintiff. The major question is, does Mr. West even care. For someone who has a net worth of $90 million dollars, it is entirely possible that he makes so much money that copyright law is a non-factor for him. It’s even more probable that the collateral damage caused by his lack of wisdom will create more publicity than the mixtape itself could on it’s own. In my opinion, this was either an excellent example of professional oversight, or a calculated move to create publicity. Either way, this can serve as a good lesson for those with eyes to see it.