Quincy Jones will Geld vom Estate einklagen

Zitat

wie tmz schreibt, beispielsweise auch für remixe oder den versionen von "This is it" oder "immortal" etc? also - ich trau michael ja wirklich einiges zu, aber dass er prophetisch schon versionen, die jahrzehnte später entstehen werden, in einen vertrag aufnehmen konnte, bezweifle selbt ich!

.... natürlich nicht...es geht um Rechte an Edits und Remixen, die Jones hat.. und von denen es auch auf Immortal und TII welche gibt...

hier mal ein Artikel nicht von TMZ... wo wenigstens mal genauer steht, worum es Jones geht, und was er einklagt..

http://www.billboard.com/artic…-music?utm_source=twitter

Quincy Jones has filed a $10 million breach-of-contract lawsuit in connection with Michael Jackson projects released after the singer's death.
The legendary producer who has won 27 Grammy Awards and produced the King of Pop's best-selling albums including "Off the Wall," "Thriller" and "Bad," is going to war with Sony Music Entertainment and MJJ Productions, a song company controlled by the icon's estate. At issue are works including the "This is it" film and soundtrack album, the Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil productions and the 25th anniversary edition of the "Bad" album.
„zur Debatte stehen Arbeiten incl. Dem TII Film ….und die BAD25 Edition des Bad Albums.“
In a complaint filed on Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, Jones alleges that master recordings he worked on were wrongfully edited and remixed so as to deprive him of back-end profit participation. Jones also asserts that he has been denied credit for his work on the singer's posthumous releases and that MJJ and Sony have entered into side deals taking profits that should have been included in the calculation of royalties.
Jones behauptet, dass die Masterrekordings an den er arbeitete falsch editiert und ge“remixed“ wurden, um zu ihn am seinem Teil des Profits zu hindern. Er behauptet auch, dass ihm seine Credits an den posthumen Veröffentlichungen verweigert wurde, und dass MJJ und Sony in nebengeschäfte/deals eingestiegen sind, die Gewinne abziehen,die in dee Kalkulation der Royalities (Lizenzen/Gebühren) beinhaltet sein sollten.
“Quincy has been frustrated with these matters for a number of years, felt he was not making any progress and needed to take more formal action," says Henry Gradstein, his attorney.
„Quincy sei schon seit Jahren frustriert von diesen Vorgängen und dachte, es gäbe in der Angelegenheit keine Fortschritte und er müsse formaler darin vorgehen.“
Jones made agreements with Jackson in 1978 and 1985 for work on the singer's solo albums. The contracts are said to have stipulated that Jones be given the first opportunity to re-edit or re-mix any of the master recordings, that the coupling of master recordings with other recordings required his prior written consent and that he be given producer credit for each of the master recordings. The deal also entitled the producer to additional compensation -- including upfront payment and a "backend" percentage -- in the event of remixed masters.
In Vereinbarungen zwischen Jones und Mj von 1978 u. 1985 sagen die Verträge, dass Jones das Erstrecht an Re-Edits habe oder an Remixen von den Masterbändern..
After the producer was hired, Jackson signed a recording agreement with Epic Records, a subsidiary of Sony. The record deal entitled Jones to payments, credit, the approval of biographical material and regular accounting. Jones contends that he is a third-party beneficiary of this recording agreement.
After Jackson's death on June 25, 2009, the King of Pop had a resurgence of popularity, and the executors of his estate and those who had control over his work attempted to exploit the public's appetite for new works. That October, Columbia Pictures released "This is it," from AEG Live and The Michael Jackson Company, which showed preparations for what would have been the singer's last concert tour. Two years later, Cirque du Soleil premiered a traveling theatrical show entitled "Michael Jackson: The Immortal Tour," which has grossed an estimated $300 million to date. This past May, Cirque du Soleil came out with a new production entitled "Michael Jackson: One." Soundtracks for both the film and the Cirque du Soleil productions have also been released.
The film and its soundtrack included re-edits of songs like "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," "She's Out of My Life," "Thriller," "Beat it," "Wanna be startin' somethin'," and "Billie Jean." The Cirque du Soleil production and album included re-edits of many of those songs as well as "Burn the Disco Out," "Workin' Day and Night," "Baby be mine" and more.

zu TII /CDS: Der Soundtrack enthält Re-Edits von "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," "She's Out of My Life," "Thriller," "Beat it," "Wanna be startin' somethin'," und "Billie Jean." Die Cirque du Soleil Show und Album enthält Reedits von einigen Songs wie Burn This Disco Out....
Jones sagt, seine Vertragsvereinbarungen wurden gebrochen als MJJ Dritten Parteien erlaubte diese Arbeiten zu verwerten ohne „zuerst Jones eine Chance zu geben solche Reedits und Remixe zu machen.“
Jones says the terms of his deal were breached when MJJ allowed third parties to exploit these works "without first providing a reasonable opportunity to Jones to perform such re-mixes and/or re-edits."
Then, the complaint goes into "clandestine agreements" allegedly made that had the effect of reducing Jones' royalties.
The lawsuit states Jones' belief that the Jackson parties "secretly entered into a venture agreement with Sony" where Sony and the Jackson Label would share profits. But Jones also alleges that rights to the master recordings "reverted from Sony to MJJ" and albums featuring the performances of Jackson were "distributed by the Jackson Label, instead of Sony, including albums embodying one or more of the Masters."
Die Klage drückt Jones Bedenkenaus, dass die Jackson-Parteien „heimlich in neue Projekt/Venture- Vereinbarungen mit Sony eingegangen sind“ bei dem Sony und das Jackson Label die Gewinne teilen. Aber Jones behauptet auch, dass die Rechte an den Masterrekordings „zurückkehrten von Sony an MJJ“ und Alben, mit den Performances von Jackson „unter dem Jackson Label verbreitet würden, anstatt von Sony, incl. Alben auf denen eines von den Masterrekordings enthalten sei.“
Thus, the defendants are charged with an effort to "divert" revenues to MJJ and "disguise" the revenues as "profits" instead of "royalties."
According to the lawsuit, "By removing such Disguised Royalties from the pool of revenues upon which Jones' royalties are calculated, MJJ purposely reduces the royalties… payable to Jones under both of the Agreements."
The lawsuit alleges another secret agreement between Sony and producers of the "This is it" film. Sony-owned master recordings were licensed, but the deal allegedly "divides the compensation payable to Sony into one portion designated for the master use licenses (the "Master Use License Fees") and another portion paid directly to MJJ (the "Additional Fees").
This is another way that Jones figures he's been deprived of royalties due to him , and it's further said that "the Master Use License Fees do not represent the fair market value, negotiated in good faith, to license the masters used in the Film."
Quincy Jones is targeting at least $10 million in damages for breach of contract, and less specifically, he wants unpaid royalties due to him, re-mixing fees that would otherwise have been paid, and compensation for the loss of the value of credit he would have received. He's also demanding an accounting.
The Michael Jackson Estate responded by saying it "was saddened to learn that Quincy Jones has filed a lawsuit seeking money from Michael's estate. To the best of its knowledge, Mr. Jones has been appropriately compensated over approximately 35 years for his work with Michael."

Zitat

Henry Gradstein, Kanzlei Gradstein und Marzano.
Das ist auch Wade Robsons Anwalt.

... natürlich schon blöd ausgerechnet diesen Anwalt zu nehmen - nur ist Quincy eigentlich bei Gradstein "richtiger" als Robson - so wie sich das anhört, ist Gradstein eher ein Spezialist für Urheberechtsverletzungen und solche Copyright Geschichten... und da würde das, was Q einklagt schon zu dieser Kanzlei passen.
Ungewöhnlich ist da eher, dass er Robsons Klage vertritt...

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/henry-gradstein/12/974/912

Zitat von maja5809

zu TII /CDS: Der Soundtrack enthält Re-Edits von "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," "She's Out of My Life," "Thriller," "Beat it," "Wanna be startin' somethin'," und "Billie Jean." Die Cirque du Soleil Show und Album enthält Reedits von einigen Songs wie Burn This Disco Out....
Jones sagt, seine Vertragsvereinbarungen wurden gebrochen als MJJ Dritten Parteien erlaubte diese Arbeiten zu verwerten ohne „zuerst Jones eine Chance zu geben solche Reedits und Remixe zu machen.“

Finde ich seltsam und das schaut man sich Jahre an (TII war 2009 und kein heimliches Produkt was auf den Markt kam ohne das Quincy es hätte mitbekommen) ohne irgendeinen Einwand zu erheben und Michael praktizierte dies doch schon zu Lebzeiten. Auf Thriller 25 war auch nicht Jones für die Remixe und Reedits verantworltich oder fragte Michael ihn zuerst und er lehnte ab?

Zitat von ,

Die Klage drückt Jones Bedenkenaus, dass die Jackson-Parteien „heimlich in neue Projekt/Venture- Vereinbarungen mit Sony eingegangen sind“ bei dem Sony und das Jackson Label die Gewinne teilen.

Auch der Satz aus der Klage hört sich mehr nach Spekulation an als denn nach Tatsachen.

Auch die Wahl des Anwaltes erscheint mir nicht zufällig wobei ich glaube das der Anwalt Jones aufsuchte. Ich glaube auch nicht das es Zufall war, dass die Robson-Klage mit der Premiere der One-Show publik geamcht wurde.

Aber abwarten was die Klage bringt.

Zitat von <br>[quote='Daniela Jackson'

Das ist ein ganz normaler Vorgang, wenn ihm Rechte zustehen. Hier stimme ich Maggie zu, wenn man von Jemandem was einklagt, dem es finanziell mies geht, dann ist das noch mieser. Aber wenn derjenige wieder liquide ist, ist das völlig legitim.

Ich finde es in beiden Fällen legitim zu klagen, wenn man um Einahmen gebracht wird, die einem eigentlich zustehen, ob der Beklagte nun gerade Schulden hat oder nicht. Das er um Royalities gebracht wurde bezweifel ich eher, aber das kann man klären.

Aber sich in diesem Fall von einem Anwalt Grandstein vertreten zu lassen, der folgenden Wortlaut vor Wochen an die weltweiten Medien gab "Michael Jackson war ein Monster und jeder normale Mensch weiß es in seinem Herzen" empfinde ich alles andere als einen normalen Vorgang.

Zitat von blackorchid

gibt es überhaupt noch loyale in seinem umfeld,außer uns fans?

Sieht nicht so aus!
Es werden sicher die nächsten Jahre immer wieder irgendwelche Geier auftauchen.

From BX of INSANITY NEXXXT

Case Number: BC525803
QUINCY JONES VS MJJ PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

The defendants filed an application for peremptory disqualification of the judge, Suzanne G. Bruguera, according to CCP 170.6, see screenshot attached.

"Peremptory Challenges
Timeliness is the touchstone for motions to disqualify judges on a peremptory basis under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Assuming the motion is timely, the judge must disqualify himself or herself. If the motion is untimely, the motion should be denied. The rules in this area of law with respect to both civil and criminal cases are substantially the same. See McClenny v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 677, 685.
All that is required for a peremptory challenge is a declaration under oath that the judge is "prejudiced against the party (or his or her attorney) or the interest of the party (or his or her attorney) so that affiant cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge." Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.6(a)(5). So long as a timely declaration is made substantially stating the quoted language above, the judge has no recourse but to disqualify himself or herself... Only one peremptory challenge is permitted per side unless substantially adverse interests between multiple parties are established." -BX

Die Beklagten (MJ-Estate) haben einen Antrag auf zwingenden Ausschluss der Richterin, Suzanne G. Bruguera gestellt, nach 170,6 CCP, siehe Screenshot beigefügt.

Ob es hiermit zu tun hat???? Sie war 2006 in MJs Klage gegen Avram Richterin.
http://www.billboard.com/artic…to-decide-jackson-lawsuit