Quincy Jones will Geld vom Estate einklagen

Hmm, die Zusammenfassung vom Schweizer Forum verschweigt ganz, das Fremers Expertenaussage vom Prozess ausgeschlossen wurde. Was mich überhaupt zu der Frage bringt was die Jones-Anwälte sich davon versprochen haben
einen Experten aufzubieten, der einen Vortrag darüber hält, das ein spezieller posthumer Remix nicht den Geschmack des Experten trifft und darüber referiert, dass dieser Remix Jones Ansehen schadet.
Geht es hier um persönlichen Geschmack oder geht es darum darzulegen, dass kein Remix veröffentlicht werden darf ohne das Jones vorher gefragt wurde, ob er den Remix übernehmen möchte. Das muss doch dargestellt werden. Interessant in dem Zusammenhang ist dann das Jones offensichtlich in seiner Deposition ausgesagt, dass er nie zuvor gefragt, ob er den ersten Remix übernehmen möchte, also auch bei allen Remixen nicht, die zu Michaels Lebzeiten veröffentlicht worden sind. Und nun Jahre nach Michaels Tod bei einem posthumen Remix klagt er dazu? Bin gespannt was dazu noch an Aussagen kommt.

Und btw, dass hier ist ein Remix den Jones zu PYT machen ließ. Wie das noch mit dem Ansehen?

Es wird erwartet das Quincy Jones am Donnerstag aussagen wird. Am Montag war die Jury nicht anwesend. Die beiden Anwaltteams verbrachten die Zeit mit organisator. Sachen. Am Montag fragte Richter Stern Jones Anwälte wie der Fall soweit kommen konnte, wenn man bedenkt das Jones einige der besten Repräsentanten in dem Business hat. Das größte Thema war, dass Jones keine Zugriff auf "Audit-Material" hat die Resultate von Daten hatte so seine Anwälte. Die Gegenseite sagt im Hinblick auf diese Besorgnis, dass die Jury mit dieser Art von Informationen in die Irre geführt werde, da Jones und seine Vertreter Zugang zu Audits von CBS Records hatten,,jetzt Teil von Sony, was darauf hindeutet, dass der Produzent die Fähigkeit hatte, zu sehen, was sein juristisches Team jetzt behauptet ihm vorher nicht verfügbar war. Jones kommt von Auftritten aus der Schweiz und Stuttgart zurück und sein Aussagetermin kann nicht vorverlegt werden wie vom Richter angefragt, da er sich von der Reise erholen müsse und sich auf die Aussage vorbereiten, so seine Anwälte. Am Dienstag werden weitere Zeugen in Unterstützung für Jones erwartet, aber die Jones-Aussage soll das Monument setzten für die Jury-Entscheidung.

Court Readies for Quincy Jones to Take the Stand in Suit Against the Michael Jackson Estate

Quincy Jones is expected to take the stand this week in his case against the Michael Jackson estate as the celebrated Grammy-award-winning 84-year-old producer seeks millions of dollars in royalties for his contributions to songs from albums such as Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad and This Is It.
The jury for the case was excused on Monday (July 17) but was told to return on Tuesday as attorneys for both Jones and the Jackson estate spent the morning with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern. The legal teams mostly reviewed organizational items as they inch closer to hearing Jones’ testimony, which will likely be Thursday, according to a legal representative for the producer.
During Monday’s session with legal teams from each side, Stern asked Jones’ attorney, J. Michael Hennigan, why the case had come this far considering that his star client has had some of the best representation in the business. The biggest issue, the attorney said, was not having access to “audit material” and the results of that data.

Opposing counsel addressed the concern and indicated that providing the jury with that kind of information was misleading as Jones and his representatives had access to audits from CBS Records, now part of Sony, suggesting that the producer has had the ability to see what his legal team is claiming was not available to him previously.
Last week, Stern informed the jury that the trial might conclude by the end of this week instead of a full three weeks as originally estimated. Stern asked the Jones legal team on Monday if the producer would be available a day earlier, but it was established that Jones is returning from a long trip and will need time to rest and prepare for his day in court.
Jones’ legal team has publicly stated that their client is owned at least $30 million, but in the end it will be up to a jury of mostly women to decide.

In recent days Jones attended the Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland and on his social media accounts he also highlighted his Quincy Jones & Friendsshowcase on July 16 at the Jazz Open Stuttgart in Germany through photos and videos, which includes extended standing ovations.
In 2003, Jones sued MJJ Productions and Sony Music Entertainment, asserting that songs such as “Thriller” and "Billie Jean,” among others, were wrongly edited and remixed to exclude the prolific producer from backend profits and a producer’s fee. The lawsuit alleged that Jones’ contracts gave him the first option to re-edit or alter the songs as a way to protect his name.
More witnesses are expected to take the stand on Tuesday in support of Jones, but it is Jones’ actual testimony that will give the case momentum as the jury determines if he is eligible for a substantial payout.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/article...st-the-michael

http://www.billboard.com/artic…ce-michael-jacksons-death


Quincy Jones Earned $18 Million in Royalties Since Michael Jackson's Death

7/18/2017 by Justino Aguila
On Day 6 of trial over missing royalties, Sony exec's testimony reveals producer's payout Since the death of pop star Michael Jackson in 2009, Quincy Jones has received nearly $18 million in royalties for his work on some of the King of Pop’s most iconic music, according to court testimony given by a high-ranking music executive on the sixth day of the trial between Jones and the Jackson estate.
Though the 84-year-old Jones, who is likely to take the stand on Thursday, claims that the Jackson estate owes him at least $30 million due to a breached contract for his work on albums Bad, Thriller, Off the Wall and This Is It, Sony's vp of royalty audits David Moro took the stand Tuesday (July 18) and spoke at length about the substantial royalties that Jones has already received from the label through the years, emphasizing payments issued since Jackson’s death 8 years ago.
Jones sued the estate and Sony Music in 2003, claiming that songs such as “Billie Jean,” “Thriller” and “Don’t Stop ’Til You Get Enough” were remixed to block him from royalties and a producer’s fee.
The legendary producer, who has been nominated 79 times for a Grammy, alleges that his contracts gave him the first option to re-edit or alter the songs, and that not having had that opportunity has hurt his reputation.
After the Jackson estate's legal team called Moro to the stand, attorney Tami Sims led Moro through series of back-to-back questions that established how much Jones has received, from smaller amounts in the range of $30,000 to much larger sums in the millions.
Moro explained that Jones was chiefly paid record royalties, not funds through a license agreement. The executive also explained that a “joint venture” agreement precluded Jones from receiving other monies.
“Mr. Jones is not a party to those agreements,” Moro said during his testimony. “Mr. Jones has never been paid under those agreements.”
When asked if Jones has previously requested audits, Moro confirmed that there had been “about 6” audits from 1981 through 1989. Additionally, there was a settlement totaling between $200,000 and $300,000 in recent years.
The jury was shown royalty summaries pertaining to Jones with one line item illustrating that Jones received nearly $18 million between 2009 and 2016.
More witnesses are expected to take the stand in Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern’s courtroom including Jones, who this week returned from work duties in Europe.

Am 6. Tag des Prozessen wurde ein hochraniger Sony-Executive in den Stand gerufen, der berichte das Jones fast 18 Mio. mit Royalities verdient habe seit Michaels Tod im Zusammenhang mit Michael Jacksons Musik. Nach dem der Jackson Estate Moro in den Stand nahm, führte der Anwalt Tami Sims Moro durch eine Reihe von Back-to-Back-Fragen, die etablierten, wie viel Jones erhalten hat, von kleineren Beträgen im Bereich von $ 30.000 bis zu viel größeren Summen in den Millionen. Moro erklärte, dass Jones ausschließlich durch Platten-Royalities bezahlt wurde, nicht durch eine Lizenz-Vereinbarung. Der Executive erklärte, dass eine "Joint-Venture"-Vereinbarung Jones davon ausschloss anderes Geld zu erhalten. "Mr. Jones ist nicht Bestandteil dieser Vereinbarungen" sagte Moro aus. Mr. Jones wurde nie unter diesen Vereinbarungen gezahlt". Als er gefragt wurde ob Jones früher Audits verlangte bestätigte Moro, dass es 6 Audits zwischen 1981 und 1989 gab. Zusätzlich gab es Settlement im Gesamten zwischen 200000 und 300000 Dollar in vergangen Jahren. Der Jury wurden Roxalities-Zusammenfassungen gezeigt, die aufzeigten das Jones zwischen 2009 und 2016 fast 18 Mio. erhielt.

Atty Blasts Quincy Jones' ‘Outrageous’ Royalty Bid At Trial

By Bonnie Eslinger
Law360, Los Angeles (July 18, 2017, 11:06 PM EDT) -- An entertainment attorney testifying Tuesday in Quincy Jones’ suit against a Michael Jackson company over $30 million in royalties for work on “Thriller” and other albums called it “outrageous” for the producer to expect ticket revenue from a posthumous movie and live shows featuring video of Jackson.
During the second week of the Los Angeles trial, defendants MJJ Productions Inc. called to the witness stand Owen J. Sloane of Eisner Jaffe, a contract attorney who told jurors he has represented such musical luminaries as Elton John, Chris Daughtry, Matchbox Twenty, Stevie Nicks and Kenny Rogers over the course of his 47-year career. Acting as MJJ Productions Inc.’s expert witness on music industry contracts, Sloane rejected many of Jones’ contract claims for compensation as atypical of industry practice.
That included telling the court that it would be “outrageous” and “absurd” for a producer like Jones to seek a share of box office receipts on top of royalties for “snippets” of music used in a film or live performance.
During cross examination, an attorney for Jones, Scott Cole of McKool Smith PC, noted that Sloane was there to testify about music industry custom and asked the defense expert “if he would agree” that Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones were “anything other than a standard, run of the mill” artist and producer. Sloane agreed.

Während der zweiten Woche des Los Angeles-Prozesses riefen die Angeklagten MJJ Productions Inc. Owen J. Sloane von Eisner Jaffe, einem Vertragsanwalt in den Zeugenstand, der den Juroren erzählte, dass er so musikalische Leuchten wie Elton John, Chris Daughtry, Matchbox Twenty, Stevie Nicks und Kenny Rogers im Laufe seiner 47-jährigen Karriere vertreten hat.. Als MJJ Productions Inc.s Experte für Musikindustrieverträge, stellte Sloane viele von Jones 'Vertragsansprüchen für Entschädigung als atypische Industriepraxis dar. Das beinhaltete dem Gericht zu sagen, dass es "unverschämt" und "absurd" sei für einen Produzenten wie Jones einen Anteil der Kassenerträge aus den Lizenzgebühren für "Snippets" von Musik zu suchen, die in einem Film oder Live-Performance verwendet werden.
Während des Kreuzverhörs stellte ein Anwalt für Jones, Scott Cole von McKool Smith PC fest, dass Sloane da ist um über Musikindustrie-Bräuche auszusagen und fragte den Verteidigungsexperten "ob er zustimmen würde", dass Michael Jackson und Quincy Jones "alles andere waren als ein Standard wie Millionen anderer Künstler und Produzenten.". Sloane stimmte zu.

He later asked Sloane about a provision in Jones' 1985 agreement with MJJ Productions for compensation when one of the master recordings he produced was used in "any audio visual presentation embodying” Jackson’s performance.
Cole asked Sloane to confirm that a documentary about Jackson’s life, "This Is It,” would qualify, since it incorporates hit songs from the albums produced by Jones and videos of the pop star before he died.
Sloane disagreed, maintaining that the phrase was meant to indicate music videos, not movies or live shows.
“To take that language and manipulate it to support your position is outrageous,” Sloane added.
Two live Cirque du Soleil shows that feature music from the three albums Jones produced and videos of Jackson also wouldn’t qualify, Sloane said.
Sloane also told jurors that even the master recording use fees given to Jones were not written into the producer’s contract — that according to the language, he was only to be paid based on record sales.
MJJ Productions attorney Zia Modabber of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP asked Sloane why he thought Jackson nonetheless gave that money to Jones.
“He thought it was fair,” Sloane said.
But Jones got greedy, Sloane insinuated, seeking more revenue, including a share of profits Jackson received by entering into a joint venture with Sony Music Entertainment.
Modabber asked Sloane what he thought, based on industry custom and practice, about a producer seeking a royalty increase when one is given to the musical artist.
Sloan said it would inappropriately allow the producer to “ride the coattails of the artist," adding that record companies expect artists to contribute something extra for an incremental increase in royalties.

Er fragte später Sloane über eine Bestimmung in Jones '1985 Vereinbarung mit MJJ Productions für die Entschädigung, wenn einer der Master-Aufnahmen, die er produzierte, in "jeder audio-visuellen Präsentation verkörpert " Jacksons Aufführung verwendet wurde. Cole fragte Sloane, um zu bestätigen, dass ein Dokumentarfilm über Jacksons Leben, "This Is It", so zu qualifizieren sei, da es Hit-Songs aus den von Jones produzierten Alben und Videos des Popstars enthält, die produziert wurden bevor er starb. Sloane war nicht einverstanden und behauptete, dass die Phrase dazu gedacht sei, Musikvideos, aber keine Filme oder Live-Shows anzuzeigen.
" Diese Sprache zu nehmen und zu manipulieren, um seine Position zu unterstützen, ist unverschämt", fügte Sloane hinzu.
Zwei Live Cirque du Soleil -Shows die Jacksons Musik aus den drei Alben, die Jones produzierte beinhalteten und Videos von Jackson würden auch nicht dazu qaulifizieren, sagte Sloane.
Sloane erzählte auch den Geschworenen, dass auch die Master-Aufzeichnungsgebühren, die an Jones gegeben wurden, nicht in dem Vertrag des Produzenten geschrieben waren -, dass er nach der Sprache nur auf der Grundlage von Palttenverkäufen bezahlt werden sollte.
MJJ Productions Rechtsanwalt Zia Modabber von Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP fragte Sloane, warum er denkt, dass Jackson dennoch das Geld an Jones gab.
"Er dachte, es wäre fair", sagte Sloane.
Aber Jones wurde gierig, unterstellte Sloane, suchte nach mehr Umsatz, einschließlich eines Anteils an Gewinnen den Jackson erhielt durch den Eintritt in ein Joint Venture mit Sony Music Entertainment.
Modabber fragte Sloane, was er dachte, basierend auf Industrie-Brauch und Praxis, über einen Produzenten, der eine Lizenzgebühr sucht, die dem Musikkünstler gegeben wird.
Sloan sagte, dass es dem Produzenten unangemessen erlauben würde, "die Coattails des Künstlers zu reiten",und fügte hinzu, dass Plattenfirmen erwarten, dass Künstler etwas Extra für eine inkrementelle Zunahme der Lizenzgebühren beitragen.

Es geht weiter im nächsten Post

Fortsetzung vom Vorpost

During cross examination, Jones’ attorney asked Sloane if he knew of any situation in which there was a joint venture between a company and an artist that shares future project profits but also “subsumes all prior royalty rights.”
Sloane said he couldn’t think of any examples off the top of his head.
Cole also asked Sloane about his earlier representation that artists would need to “give to get” something additional from a record company. He asked the expert why he thought Jackson then gave Jones the allegedly undeserved master recording use fees.
Sloane said Jackson wasn’t a “big corporate giant,” and the agreement between the two men was about “two human beings dealing with one another.”

Während der Kreuzverhörs fragte Jones Anwalt Sloane, ob er von einer Situation wusste, in der es ein Joint Venture zwischen einem Unternehmen und einem Künstler gab, der zukünftige Projektgewinne teilt, aber auch "alle vorherigen Lizenzrechte einnimmt". Sloane sagte, er habe keine Beispiele dazu..
Cole fragte auch Sloane über seine frühere Vorstellung, dass die Künstler "etwas geben müssen", um etwas von einer Plattenfirma zu bekommen. Er fragte den Experten, warum er dachte das Jackson dann gab Jones die angeblich unverdiente Master Recording Nutzung Gebühren. Sloane sagte, dass Jackson kein "großer Unternehmensriese" sei und die Vereinbarung eine zwischen den beiden Männern war "zwei Menschen, die mit einander umgehen".

The trial kicked off July 11, with Jones' attorney Mike McKool of McKool Smith telling the 12-juror panel that under a deal worked out with Jackson, Jones received a portion of royalties that would be raised or lowered to the same degree as what Jackson received.

That changed after Jackson’s 2009 death, which sparked posthumous interest in the King of Pop’s music and increased sales, according to the attorney. Jackson’s estate negotiated a new deal with record label Sony Music Entertainment that provided a higher percentage of revenue to MJJ Productions from the albums and songs, but the increase wasn’t reflected in audit records provided to Jones, nor did the producer see a boost in his royalties, McKool said.

On Thursday, Modabber took his turn at questioning Jones’ damages expert, the producer’s accountant Gary Cohen, to ask why Jones hadn’t previously sought a share of profits from Jackson’s joint venture with Sony Music Entertainment, remixing opportunities and revenue from a posthumous documentary and two Cirque du Soleil shows featuring Jackson’s music.
“Your job is to pursue every dollar, correct?” Modabber asked.

The attorney also took aim at Jones’ claim that his contracts gave him “first right” to do any editing or remixing, saying that up until 2005, Michael Jackson’s production company had hired other people to do such work on the master recordings without any protest from Jones — who was now claiming about $4.7 million in damages for remixing.
Am Donnerstag wandte sich Modabber mit der Frage an Jones 'Schadenersatz-Experte, dem Buchhalter des Produzenten Gary Cohen, um zu fragen, warum Jones zuvor nicht einen Gewinnanteil von Jacksons Joint Venture mit Sony Music Entertainment gesucht habe und Einnahmen aus einem posthumen Dokumentarfilm und zwei Cirque du Soleil -Shows, die Jacksons Musik beinhalten.
"Ihre Aufgabe ist es, jeden Dollar zu verfolgen, richtig?", fragte Modabber.
Der Anwalt zielte auch auf Jones 'Behauptung, dass seine Verträge ihm "das erste Recht" gaben, irgendeine Bearbeitung oder Remixierung zu machen, und sagte, dass bis 2005 Michael Jacksons Produktionsfirma andere Leute angestellt hatte, um solche Arbeiten an den Masters machen zu lassen ohne Protest von Jones - der behauptete nun über $ 4,7 Millionen Anspruch an Schadenersatz für die Remixe zu haben.

Jones, a 27-time Grammy winner who worked with Michael Jackson over the course of a decade from 1978 to the late 80s, is seeking damages for breach of contract claims.

https://www.law360.com/media/article...y-bid-at-trial

July 20, 2017 2:29pm PT by Ashley Cullins
Quincy Jones Takes the Stand in Michael Jackson Royalties Trial
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c…n-royalties-trial-1023057
Getty Images

"I'm not suing Michael," Jones said pointedly to the attorney for Jackson's estate. "I'm suing y'all."

"Ich verklage nicht Michael" sagte Jones pointiert zu den Anwälten des Estates. " Ich verklage Euch alle."

Quincy Jones has been in the music business for 70 years, and he can't say exactly how many works he's composed or albums he's produced — but he does remember distinctly the moment he discovered his passion.
Wearing a grey suit, maroon shirt and black tie and vest, the 84-year-old producer told a jury that seeing a piano in an office he'd broken into with his friends changed his life. "I wanted to be a gangster until I was 11," Jones said. But, in that moment with his fellow "baby gangsters," he said every cell in his body told him music is what he'd do for the rest of his life.
Jones is suing MJJ Productions, a company controlled by Michael Jackson's estate. He says he's owed tens of millions, his share of posthumous profits resulting from the exploitation of songs he produced. The producer met the King of Pop while working on The Wiz, and went on to produce his first three solo albums, Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad.
He considered 800 songs for Thriller, he told his attorney Mike McKool in a crowded courtroom Thursday morning. After all, finding songs is a producer's number one job. "A great song can make the worst artist in the world a star," Jones said, adding that making music requires extreme love, respect and trust. "I've never in my life done a record for money or fame."
Peppered in the questions about his producer agreements with Jackson were colorful bits of music history. (Vincent Price recorded his "Thriller" monologue in just two takes.) There were also a surprising amount of jokes. When McKool asked if Jones could see Jackson's signature on one of the exhibits, the producer quipped "Ray Charles could see that."


Jones verklagt MJJ Productions, ein Unternehmen, das von Michael Jacksys Nachlass kontrolliert wird. Er sagt, er habe Dutzende von Millionen verdient, sein Anteil an posthumösen Gewinnen, die aus der Ausbeutung von Songs resultierten, die er produzierte. Der Produzent traf den King of Pop bei der Arbeit an The Wiz und fuhr fort, seine ersten drei Soloalben, Off the Wall, Thriller und Bad zu produzieren.
Er betrachtete 800 Lieder für Thriller, sagte er seinem Anwalt Mike McKool in einem überfüllten Gerichtssaal am Donnerstagmorgen. Immerhin ist das Finden von Songs Nummer eins Job eines Produzenten "Ein tolles Lied kann den schlechtesten Künstler in der Welt zu einen Star machen", sagte Jones und fügte hinzu, dass Musik erzeugt extreme Liebe, Respekt und Vertrauen. "Ich habe noch nie in meinem Leben einen Platte für Geld oder Ruhm gemacht."
Zu den Fragen über seine Produzentenvereinbarungen mit Jackson waren bunte Stücke der Musikgeschichte. (Vincent Price machte seinen "Thriller" -Monolog in nur zwei Takes.) Es gab auch eine überraschende Menge an Witzen. Als McKool fragte, ob Jones Jacksons Unterschrift auf einem der Exponate sehen könne, wippte der Produzent "Ray Charles konnte das sehen."
The mood shifted when Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman began his cross-examination by asking whether Jones realized he's effectively suing the artist himself. "I'm not suing Michael," Jones said pointedly. "I'm suing y'all."
Die Stimmung wechselte als Jackson Estate Anwalt Howard Weitzman sein Kreuzverhör begann indem er ihn fragte ob Jones realisiert, dass er in Wirklichkeit den Künstler selbst verklagt. "Ich verklage nicht Michael, Ich verklage Euch alle.
Read More
Quincy Jones Faces Off With Michael Jackson's Company in Jury Trial

When the questioning turned to the specifics of the contracts, the tension grew. Jones' attorneys argue his written agreements with Jackson clearly state that he's entitled to a share of licensing revenue when the songs he produced are used in films and other projects, while attorneys for MJJ argue the contracts make it clear Jones is only entitled to a share of record sales and anything he was paid beyond that was an act of kindness by Jackson.
Jones admitted he doesn't like contracts, and leaves handling the "legalese" to his lawyers — often signing an agreement having only seen the signature page.
Weitzman pressed Jones on the agreement, asking whether he feels entitled to a share of licensing even though MJJ's interpretation of the contracts means he's not legally entitled to it.
"Contract montract," said Jones. "If we made the record we deserve to get paid."
After discussion about how lucky the producer and artist were to work with each other, Weitzman turned to the music itself. He played Jackson's original demos of four songs, including "Billie Jean" and "Beat It," and then immediately followed with a clip of the final product.
Despite bobbing along to the music, Jones grew irritated.
"What's your point, Howard?" he asked. The point, although Weitzman didn't outright say it, was to show the jury the similarity between Jackson's pitch and the Jones-produced record in hopes that they'll attribute a larger percentage of the creation to the artist.
Jones says that Jackson "absolutely" did right by him creatively, but whether he did financially is open to debate. When asked why he didn't complain about his share of profits while the singer was alive Jones said, "I cared more about him as a human being than about the money."
Both sides rested Thursday afternoon following Jones' testimony. Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning.

Als die Befragung sich den Besonderheiten der Verträge zuwandte, wuchs die Spannung. Jones 'Anwälte argumentieren das seine schriftlichen Vereinbarungen mit Jackson deutlich sagen, dass er Anspruch auf einen Anteil der Lizenzeinnahmen hat , wenn die Songs, die er produziert in Filmen und anderen Projekten verwendet werden, während die Anwälte für MJJ argumentieren die Verträge machen deutlich, Jones ist nur berechtigt, einen Anteil Von Plattenverkäufen zu erhalten und alles, was er darüber hinaus erhielt, war ein Akt der Freundlichkeit von Jackson. Jones gab zu, dass er keine Verträge mag und überlässt die "Legalese" seinen Anwälten - oft unterschreibt er eine Vereinbarung, die nur die Signaturseite gesehen hat.
Weitzman drängte Jones auf die Vereinbarung und fragte, ob er einen Anspruch auf einen Lizenzanteil habe, obwohl MJJs Auslegung der Verträge bedeutet, dass er nicht rechtlich dazu berechtigt ist.
"Vertrag montract", sagte Jones. "Wenn wir die Platte gemacht haben, haben wir es verdient, bezahlt zu werden."
Nach der Diskussion darüber, wie glücklich der Produzent und Künstler darüber waren mit einander arbeiten zu können, wandte sich Weitzman der Musik selbst zu. Er spielte Jacksons ursprüngliche Demos von vier Songs, darunter "Billie Jean" und "Beat It" und folgte sofort mit einem Clip des Endprodukts. Trotz der Wippe an der Musik, wurde Jones gereizt."Was ist dein Punkt, Howard?" fragte er. Der Punkt, obwohl Weitzman es nicht ganz gesagt hatte war es, sollte der Jury die Ähnlichkeit zwischen Jacksons Pitch und der von Jones produzierten Platte zeigen, in der Hoffnung, dass sie dem Künstler einen größeren Prozentsatz der Schöpfung zuordnen werden.
Jones sagt, dass Jackson "absolut" richtig bei ihm tat kreativ, aber ob er es finanziell tat ist offen zu diskutieren. Auf die Frage, warum er sich nicht über seinen Gewinnanteil beschwert hat, während der Sänger am Leben war, sagte Jones: "Ich habe mich mehr um ihn als Mensch gekümmert als um das Geld."
Beide Seiten ruhten am Donnerstag Nachmittag nach Jones 'Zeugnis. Die Schlusspläydoyers sind für Montagmorgen geplant.

Jones ließ sich übrigens im Rollstuhl in den Gerichtssaal fahren, erstaunlich, dass er nach Europa zu 2 Festivals jetten konnte und zu Fuß die Bühne betreten konnte, aber für den Weg zum Gerichtssaalstuhl langt es nicht.
Die Arroganz mit der Jones da im Gerichtssaal auftritt nach dem Motto Verträge interessieren mich nicht finde ich echt erstaunlich. Auch bezeichnend wie Jones nervös wurde als Weitzmann Michaels Demos spielte und das Endprodukt auf der Platte. Das war ein wirklich guter Schachzug um zu zeigen wer da die meiste Arbeit an der Platte geleistet hat und das
Michael Jones viel mehr Produktions-Credit gab als ihm eigentlich zustand.

://www.courthousenews.com/quincy...ackson-estate/

Quincy Jones Testifies in $30M Royalty Fight With Michael Jackson Estate
MATT REYNOLDS
LOS ANGELES (CN) – Music producer, composer and arranger Quincy Jones took the stand Thursday morning to make his case in a dispute over $30 million in royalties he claims Michael Jackson’s estate owes him.

During several testy exchanges with MJJ Productions’ attorney Howard Weitzman over the course of almost 2 1/2 hours, Jones frequently expressed his lack of interest in the legal aspects of his career. He acknowledged he only looked at the signature pages of his producer agreements for three collaborations with Jackson, including the albums “Off the Wall,” “Thriller” and “Bad.”
Während des mehrmaligen Austausches mit Howard Weizmann während fast 2,5 Stunden drückte Jones immer wieder sein Desinteressen an Verträgen in seiner Karriere aus. Er gab zu nur auf die Unterschriftenseite geschaut zu haben bei seinen Produzentenverträgen für die 3 Zusammenarbeiten mit Jackson bei OTW, Thriller und Bad.

Jones, wearing a maroon shirt, black tie, gray suit and shaded glasses, repeatedly returned to a common refrain: he was only interested in the music and not the pieces of paper he’d signed to secure royalties.
When Weitzman asked the 84-year-old if he believed Jackson had done the right thing by him financially, Jones was forthright.
“That’s open for debate,” Jones said.
Als Weitzmann den 84-jähringen fragte ob er glaube, dass Jackson ihn finanziell richtig behandelte antworte Jones.
Das ist offen für eine Debatte.

In October 2013, Jones sued Jackson’s estate MJJ Productions and Sony Music Entertainment for breach of a Nov. 1, 1978, producer’s agreement, and a Dec. 1, 1985, producer’s agreement with the King of Pop.
In addition to the three albums, Jones also worked with Jackson on the 1978 movie “The Wiz” and Stephen Spielberg’s 1982 classic film “E.T.” he told the court.

After Jackson died in 2009, Jones says Jackson’s three children, through his estate, began releasing new material without paying Jones his share. The new works included soundtracks for the documentary “This Is It” and the Cirque du Soliel production “Michael Jackson: The Immortal Work Tour.”
Jones also says the Jackson children secretly entered into a joint venture agreement with Sony Music that exploited the master recordings of the music he produced with Jackson.
Nachdem Jackson im Jahr 2009 gestorben ist, sagt Jones das Jacksons drei Kinder, durch sein Nachlass, begannen, neues Material zu veröffentlichen, ohne Jones seinen Anteil zu bezahlen. Die neuen Arbeiten beinhalteten Soundtracks für den Dokumentarfilm "This Is It" und die Cirque du Soliel Produktion "Michael Jackson: The Immortal World- Tour".Jones sagt auch, dass die Jackson-Kinder heimlich in eine Joint-Venture-Vereinbarung mit Sony Music eingetreten sind, die die Meisteraufnahmen der Musik, die er mit Jackson produzierte, ausnutztem.

Jones seeks $30 million in alleged unpaid royalties. During the trial in LA County Superior Court Judge Michael Stern’s courtroom downtown, jurors heard that Jones had received $18 million in compensation from the contracts.

After taking the stand, Jones told his attorney Mike McKool that during his 70-year-career he learned that he could only make successful records with “extreme love, respect and trust.” He had left the negotiating of his contracts to his attorneys because he did not know how to translate the “legalese.”
“That’s not my thing. I do music,” Jones said.
Nachdem er den Stand nahm erzählte Jones seinem Anwalt Mike McKool, dass er während seiner 70-jähringen Karriere gelernt hat wie man erfolgreich Platten macht "mit extremer Liebe, Respekt und Vertrauen" Er ließ das Verhandeln der Verträge seinen Anwälten, weil er nicht wusste wie der die Gesetze zu übersetzen hat. Das ist nicht mein Ding, ich mache Musik." sagt Jones

During cross-examination on Thursday, Weitzman seized on Jones apparent ignorance of the contracts he had signed, asking him on multiple occasions if he believed he was entitled to things that were not in writing.
“When you put the energy into the record, you should get paid every time it’s performed,” Jones said, at one point signaling his impatience with Weitzman by tapping his fingers on the space in front of him like a piano.
Während des Kreuzverhörs ging Weitzmann mehrmals auf Jones offensichtliche Ignoranz der Verträge ein, die er unterzeichnet hat und fragt ihn bei mehreren Gelegenheiten warum er glaubt zu etwas berechtigt zu sein was nicht geschrieben steht.
"Wenn Du die Energie in eine Platte steckst solltest Du dafür bezahlt werden, jedes mal wenn sie performt wird sagte Jones an einem Punkt, die seine Ungeduldigkeit signalisierte indem er seine Finger bewegte gegenüber ihm wie an einem Klavier.

Jones grew agitated when Weitzman played several early demos of Jackson’s songs, including “Workin’ Day and Night,” “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” “Billie Jean,” and an a cappella version of “Beat It” that Jackson had recorded at his Hayvenhurst family home. The attorney then played the final album versions of the songs.
“What’s your point, Howard,” Jones said at one point. At another, he snapped: “What are you trying to prove?”
Weitzman said he was only trying to demonstrate Jackson’s contributions to the finished songs. He asked Jones why he had sued Jackson’s estate.
“Because I was cheated of money, that’s why. A lot of money,” Jones replied.

Jones Aufgewühltheit wuchs als Weitzmann einige frühe Demos von Jackson Songs spielte einbeziehend “Workin’ Day and Night,” “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” “Billie Jean,” und eine Acapellaversion von Beat it, die Jackson im Familienhaus Hayvenhurst erstellt hatte. Der Anwalt spielte danach die endgültigen Plattenversionen. "Was ist Dein Punkt, Howard." fragte Jones an einer Stelle und an einer anderen "Was versuchst Du zu beweisen?"
Weitzmann sagte, dass er nur zu demonstrieren versucht Jackson Anteile an den fertigen Songs darzustellen. Er frage Jones warum er den Jackson-Estate verklagt."Weil ich um Geld betrogen wurde, viel Geld, viel Geld."

Both sides rested after Jones’ testimony and closing arguments are expected Monday at 9:30 a.m.

www.billboard.com/articles/ne...rial-exclusive

Die Michael Jackson Estate Anwälte Weitzmann und Moddaber gaben vor den Abschlussplädoyers Billboard ein Interview


Michael Jackson Estate Lawyers on What to Expect as Quincy Jones Trial Closes: Exclusive

Billboard

7/24/2017 by Justino Aguila

If Michael Jackson could see that his longtime friend and collaborator Quincy Jones was suing him in court for millions of dollars, “Michael would be rolling over in his grave,” says entertainment attorney Howard Weitzman, whose team is representing the Jackson estate in the case.
"Michael würde sich im Grab umdrehen über das hier " sagt Weitzmann

Weitzman, along with attorney Zia Modabber, spoke with Billboard exclusively as they prepared to head to Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday to convince a jury in their closing arguments that Jones is not entitled to receive the additional $30 million he is seeking in royalties. The case pits the legendary 84-year-old producer against the estate of the King of Pop, who died eight years ago after his doctor administered a fatal cocktail of medications.

Jones, who testified in court last week, maintains that he’s owed the royalties for the use of the songs from Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad and the film This Is It, among other projects. Jones has already received about $18 million in royalties since Jackson’s death, according to testimony given during the trial; his legal team did not respond to a request for comment.

Quincy Jones Takes the Stand in Michael Jackson Royalties Trial

But after nearly three weeks presenting a jury with evidence, testimony, music and line-by-line royalty summaries in an effort to prove that Jones is only entitled to a share of record sales, Weitzman says that he believes that the primary reason Jones is unhappy is because his name was left out of the credits for the film This Is It. The estate acknowledged that the omission was an error and said Jones received an apology.
Weitzmann sagt, der primäre Grund warum Jones unglücklich ist, ist weil sein Name nicht als Credit unter dem TII-Film stand. Der Estate hat erklärt dies war ein Fehler und Jones erhielt eine Entschuldigung.

Weitzman and Modabber spoke to Billboard about the trial so far and what to expect from their closing argument Monday, which they promise will be “entertaining.”

What are your thoughts about the trial up to this point?
Was sind Ihre Gedanken über diesen Prozess zu diesem Zeitpunkt?

Weitzman: For us this case is kind of a simple breach-of-contract case, and Mr. Jones wants money that he's not entitled to. He's been paid every time his masters have been used. He's been paid his fees for all the recordings and he wants additional money, and we don't think he's entitled to it. He has testified that he doesn't care what the contract says. This case was filed four years after Michael died. It appears from the testimony that he [Jones] became upset because he did not get proper credit in the film This Is It.
Weitzmann: Für uns ist das ein simpler Fall von Vertragsbruch-Fall und Mr. Jones möchte Geld für das er nicht berechtigt ist. Er wurde bezahlt zu jeder Zeit seine Mastern genutzt wurden. Ihm wurden alle Gebühren für seine Aufnahmen gezahlt und nun wir er zusätzliches Geld und wird denken dazu ist er nicht berechtigt. Er hat ausgesagt, dass er sich nicht für Verträge interessiert und was dieser sagt. Diese Klage wurde eingereicht Jahre nachdem Michael gestorben ist. Es ist offensichtlich von der Zeugenaussage das Jones ärgerlich wurde weil er nicht für den TII-Film creditiert war.

Why didn't Jones get credit for the film This Is It?
Warum bekam Jones keinen Credit für den TII-Film?
Weitzman: We made a mistake, to be that blunt. He wasn't involved in anything about the movie. Obviously he produced the masters in the late '70s and through the mid '80s on those three albums, Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad, and he's certainly entitled to credit as a producer on those masters. Yes, he should have gotten the credit, but I'm not sure how that gets you on a platform to jump off and file a lawsuit four years after Michael died and after This Is It was released. He basically suggested that he didn't care what the contract says and that he should [be part of] Michael's 1991 joint venture with Sony.
Weitzmann: Wir haben eine Fehler gemacht um offen zu sein. Er war nicht mit irgendetwas im Film involviert. Offensichtlich produzierte er die Master der später 70er bis Mitte er 80er von den 3 Alben OTW, Thriller und Bad und er ist sicherlich berechtigt einen Credit zu bekommen als Produzent der Master. Ja wir hätten ihn ihm geben sollen, aber ich bin nicht sicher wie ihn das dazu berechtigt auf ein Plattform zu springen und eine Klage einzureichen Jahre nachdem Michael starb und der Film veröffentlicht wurde. Er sagt das er sich nicht kümmert was die Verträge sagen und das er hätte sein sollen Teil von Michael 1991er Joint Venture mit Sony.

Modabber: The movie This Is It was rehearsal footage [from Michael] that was never intended to be publicized. The vocals and the audio weren't perfect. Michael owned these master recordings and so they went to those recordings that he owned, and they were edited in bits and pieces in the movie to make it sound bettet.
Modabber: Der TII-Film war Probematerial von Michael das niemals zur Veröffentlichung bestimmt war. Die Vokale und das Audit waren nicht perfekt. Michael besaß diese Master-Aufnahmen und so nahmen sie die Aufnahmen, die er besitzt und sie wurden editiert in Stücke um es besser im Film klingen zu lassen.

Quincy Jones Earned $18 Million in Royalties Since Michael Jackson's Death

Weitzman: And Quincy got paid his fees on that.
Weitzmann: Und Quincy wurde bezahlt dafür.

Modabber: He got paid his fees using the exact same formula that is always used when masters that a producer produces are used in a movie. He got paid for Michael's masters being in the movie, something like $400,000 or $500,000, but he [Jones] has learned through this lawsuit that the estate has made something like $90 million and we think he's really upset that the estate made all this money, and he and his lawyers don't seem to have the ability to comprehend that the contributions of those masters for that movie is really a tiny little piece of what it was.
Modabber: Er wurde bezahlt auf der gleichen Formel wie immer wenn die Masters in dem Film verwendet wurden, die er produziert hat. Ihm wurden für Michaels Masters, die ihm Film waren zwischen 400000 und 500000 Dollar gezahlt, aber Jones hat durch seine Klage erfahren das der Estate in etwa 90 Mio. vom Film einnahm und er ist wirklich wütend, dass der Estate all dieses Geld gemacht hat und er und seine Anwälte sehen nicht, dass die Nutzung der Masters in dem Film nur ein kleiner Beitrag dazu ist was den Film ausmachte.

Weitzman: What we [the estate] are supposed to do is exploit the assets post death, and we got pretty lucky with This Is It and who knew? But it wasn't about the music. It was about Michael. Nobody would be buying tickets to the theater to listen to snippets of the masters.
Weitzmann: Der Estate ist dazu da um den Besitz nach dem Tod zu erhöhen und wir waren sehr glücklich mit TII und wer weiß? Aber es ging nicht um die Musik. Es ging um Michael. Niemand würde Tickets kaufen und in ein Kino gehen um zu Snippets von Masteters anzuhören.

Modabber: Take a step back and think about how much of that money is attributable to the snippets of the masters. The testimony came in that they paid a little over $4 million for all the masters in the movie. Quincy Jones is not the producer on all the masters. He's the producer on two-thirds of the masters. He gets his producer's share, which is a fraction. He doesn't get all that money. The money goes to the owner of the masters and Sony. Sony Music is the distributor. That is a truckload of money for one producer to make for snippets. It's the most amount of money that has ever been paid for master-use fees, maybe in the history of movies.
Modabber: Geh einen Schritt zurück und denke darüber nach wie weil vom dem Geld geht zurück auf Nutzung von Snippets von Masters. Die Aussage kam, dass sie ein wenig über 4 Mio. für die Mastern im Film zahlten. Quincy Jones ist nicht der Produzent aller Masters. Er ist Produzent von 2/3 der Masters. Er bekam seinen Produzentenanteil, der ein Teil davon ist. Er bekam nicht das ganze Geld. Das geht zum Besitzer der Masters (Michael) und Sony. Sony ist Vertreiber. Das ist ein Haufen Geld für eine Produzenten für Snippets. Es ist der größte Betrag der jemals gezahlt wurde für die Master-Nutzungs-Gebühren wahrschein in der Geschichte von Filmen.

.Es geht weiter:

Do you believe that Jones deserves to receive some money?
Glauben Sie das Jones etwas Geld verdient zu erhalten?

Weitzman: Quincy Jones had the right to audit the record company directly for his producer royalties and he has done that for decades and it's always been worked out. That audit process was started before this lawsuit was started and the record company has calculated that Quincy has been underpaid by just under $400,000. In the real world when a record company says, "Okay we found these mistakes," and it's $400,000, it probably settles for a little bit more than that. Maybe it settles for $500,000 or $600,000 or $700,000. We told the jury that mistakes were made and he's owed some money. You've got a guy with a zillion different records sold in a zillion different ways in a zillion different places. Mistakes were made. It's the record business, but nobody is fighting about that. [Music attorney] John [Branca] testified that he told Howard to go offer him $2 or $3 million, five times what the record company found that he was owed by these mistakes and that was not good enough.
Weitzmann: Quincy Jones hat das Recht Audits direkt mit der Plattenfirma zu machen zu seinen Royalities und er hat das seit Jahrzehnten gemacht und es wurde immer ausgehandelt. Der Audit_prozess wurde gestartet vor seiner Klage und die Plattenfirma hat kalkuliert das Jones unterbezahlt wurde für nur 400000 Dollar in der realen Welt sagt die Firma: "Okay wir haben Fehler gemacht" und es sind 400000 Dollar, es wird wahrscheinlich eine Einigung für etwas mehr getroffen. Vielleicht 500000 Doller bis 700000 Dollar. Wir haben der Jury gesagt das Fehler gemacht wurden und es steht im etwas Geld zu. Du hast einen Kerl mit Zillionen verschiedenen Platten verkauft in verschieden Wegen und Zillionen Plätzen Fehler wurden gemach. Es ist die Plattenindustrie, aber niemand bekriegt sich darüber. Musik-Anwalt John Branca sagte gegenüber Howard aus, dass sie im 20 bis 3 Mio. boten, 5-mal mehr als was die Plattenfirma ermittelt hat als ausstehenden Betrag, aber es war nicht gut genug.

How much has the estate made since Michael's death?
Wie viel hat der Estate seit Michaels Tod verdient?

Weitzman: It's been hundreds of millions of dollars.
Weitzmann: Es sind hunderte Millionen von Dollars.

Modabber: On top of paying all of the debt.
Modabber: Zusätzlich zum Zahlen aller Schulden

His children benefit from that?
Seine Kinder sind die Begünstigen davon?

Weitzman: They are the only beneficiaries.
Weitzmann: Sie sind die einzigen Begünstigten.

How is the family dealing with this case?
Wie geht die Familie mit dem Fall um?

The family is not involved because they are not beneficiaries although part of the estate's responsibility is to take care of Mrs. Jackson for her life, which we do. The children don't really know Mr. Jones and they are just aghast but they are not really involved because they didn't deal with him, and they were young when the This Is It film was made.
Die Familie ist nicht involviert, weil sie keine Begünstigten sind, obwohl der Estate Verantwortung trägt für das Wohlergehen von Mrs. Jackson in ihrem Leben, was wir tun. Die KInder kennen Mr. Jones nucht wirklich und sie sind nur informiert aber nicht wirklich involviert weil sie nicht mit ihm zu tun hatten und sie waren jung als der TII-Film gemacht wurde.

What are your plans if Jones receives a significant amount of money?
Was sind Ihre Pläne wenn Jones eine bedeutende Summe Geld zugesprochen wird?

Weitzman: If it's zero the only impact is that we had to spend money for the lawyers to defend the case and go through the aggravation and anxiety. If he gets [major] money obviously there is a process post-trial, and we'll take advantage of all that, and sometime in the future if there is no relief there, then he'll get paid.

Weitzman: Wenn es null ist, ist die einzige Auswirkung, dass wir Geld für die Anwälte ausgeben müssen, um den Fall zu verteidigen und durch die Verschlimmerung und Angst zu gehen. Wenn er viel Geld bekommt, gibt es offensichtlich einen Prozeß nach der Verhandlung, und wir werden das alles in Anspruch nehmen, und irgendwann in der Zukunft, wenn es dort keine Erleichterung gibt, dann wird er bezahlt.

What are the legal costs for this case?
Was sind die Rechtskosten für den Fall?

Modabber: A lot. These are on both sides. It's an expensive case.
Modabber: Sehr hoch. Auf beiden Seiten. Es ist ein teurer Fall.

How do you want Michael Jackson to be remembered?
Wie möchten Sie das Michael Jackson in Erinnerung bleibt?

Weitzman: I want him to continue to be remembered as one of the great musical entertainers of all time.
Weitzmann: ich möchte das er weiterhin als einer der größten Entertainer aller Zeiten in Erinnerung bleibt.

Modabber: That sums it up.
Modabber: Das fasst es zusammen

How are you preparing for the closing arguments?
Wie bereiten Sie sich für das Abschlussplädoyer vor?

Weitzman: We don't want to share that ... we would like a element of surprise. Zia and I are going to split up the argument, but let me say this: it will be entertaining
Weitmann: Wir wollen das nicht mitteilen.....wir wollen ein Element der Überraschung lassen. Zia und ich werden die Argumentation aufteilen, aber lassen Sie mich sagen: es wird unterhaltsam

Die Schlussplädoyers wurden gehalten Jones sagt ihm werden 30 Mio. geschuldet, Estate beziffert die Zahl näher an 400000 Dollar. Die Beratungen der Jury haben mittlerweile begonnen. Beide Seiten haben auf eine Jury-Instruktion hingewiesen wie die Bedingungen im Vertrag zu interpretieren sind und interessanterweise sagten beide es sei eine Bestätigung ihr letzten Argumente. Der Richter sagte um die Worte im Vertrag zu interpretieren sollen sie die Aktionen und Handlungen beider Parteien von der Zeit wo sie unterschrieben wurden bis zum Moment wo der Streit begann beurteilen. Somit wie die Juroren denken, dass Jackson und MJJ die Buisiness-Beziehung behandelten von 1985 bis 2013 wird ein Schlüsselfaktor in ihrer Entscheidung sein.
Der Richter erinnerte die Juroren daran, dass sie nur darüber entscheiden müssen, "ob eine Anschuldigung wahrscheinlich mehr wahr ist als unwahr" und 9 von 12 Juroren müssen zur Frage zustimmen bevor sie zu nächsten auf dem Urteilsbogen weitergehen.

July 24, 2017 3:51pm PT by Ashley Cullins
Jury Begins Deliberations in Quincy Jones-Michael Jackson Estate Royalties Dispute
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...ispute-1023965
Jones says he's owed $30 million, while Jackson's estate puts it closer to $400,000.
Chris Walter/WireImage
Michael Jackson (left) and Quincy Jones
Advertisement

Jones says he's owed $30 million, while Jackson's estate puts it closer to $400,000.

Talk of "word games" dominated closing arguments in the royalties trial between Quincy Jones and a company owned by Michael Jackson's estate — and a jury of 10 women and two men will soon have to define terms like "record" and "videoshow" to determine how much money, if any, the producer is owed.

Jones sued MJJ Productions in 2013, claiming that after the King of Pop's death Jones was shorted tens of millions in royalties and wrongfully denied the opportunity to remix works he created with the artist. The estate says some run of the mill accounting errors did cause Jones to be shorted, but he's owed about $392,000 — not the $30 million he's asking for.

Closing arguments ended just before lunch Monday in a crowded downtown courtroom. So crowded, in fact, the legal teams used "seat fillers" to make sure all of their people had a seat — leaving several members of the press hunkered near the entrance, pressed up against a wall to avoid the judge's line of sight. The courtroom assistant warned that if the judge saw them peeking around the corner, he'd kick them out.

Jones attorney Scott Cole led off closings by telling the jury the case was about two men and "the landmark music they created." He described MJJ's defense as nothing more than "word games and loopholes" and emphasized that this is the first time in a seven-decade career that Jones has ever filed a lawsuit.

Because the dispute centers on two contracts, the 1978 and 1985 producer agreements between Jones and Jackson, the precise definitions of words are key. Under the deals, Jones is entitled to a share of record royalties from Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad. The parties dispute whether Jones should share in the profits from Jackson's 1991 joint venture with Sony, and whether he should share in net profits from movies instead of licensing fees from the songs used in them.

Jones argues that the This is It documentary counts as a "videoshow" under his contract, and he's entitled to a share of net receipts. Meanwhile, MJJ says the term is used for things like music videos and isn't relevant here.

The jury will also have to decide what it means to "remix" a song. Jones says his contract gives him right of first refusal to remix any of the works he produced for Jackson, while MJJ says that right was limited to remixes ordered by Sony (then Epic) at the time the albums were being produced.

Quincy Jones Takes the Stand in Michael Jackson Royalties Trial

MJJ attorneys Zia Modabber and Howard Weitzman split closing arguments for the defense.

Modabber reiterated that the Sony joint venture was announced in the early '90s, and Jones didn't complain about his stake until two decades later. He also notes that Jackson's death has been lucrative for the producer. In the two years prior to his June 25, 2009, passing, Jones made $3 million from his share of their works. In the two years after Jackson's death, Jones made $8 million.

While reminding the jury that Jackson isn't here to defend himself, Modabber imagined the artist would say to Jones, "You didn't make me."

When Weitzman took over, he turned the focus to the words Jones used during his testimony. Specifically, he questioned Jones' claim that he doesn't care about the contract and isn't bringing this case because of money. He also said that allowing Jones to claim a share of net receipts on the documentary would be like telling the theater audience that, when they bought their tickets, they really bought a record.

Weitzman also reminded the jury that Jones has cashed $18 million in checks since Jackson's death and continues to be paid per MJJ's interpretation of their deal. He then asked the jury to send Jones a message: "You don't deserve a raise. You can't have any more of Michael Jackson's money."

Jones attorney Mike McKool picked back up for his team, and pointed out that Jackson's estate has made about half a billion in profits since the artist died. "This is a lot of money," he told the jury. "We all know that."

Both sides point to a jury instruction about how to interpret the terms in a contract, and, interestingly, both say it is an asset to their respective arguments. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern read it as part of jury instructions just after the lunch recess. In short, he told jurors that in order to interpret what the words in a contract mean, they can consider the actions of the parties from the time that it was signed until the moment the dispute began. So how the jurors feel Jones, Jackson and MJJ treated the business relationship from 1985 until 2013 will likely be a key factor in their decision.

Stern also reminded the jurors that they only need to decide whether an allegation is "more likely to be true than untrue" and nine jurors out of 12 must agree on each question on the verdict form before moving on to the next. Deliberations began at approximately 2:30 p.m.

Quincy Jones wurden von der Jury 9,42 Mio. in Musik Royalities vom Michael Jacksons Estate zu gesprochen.
Die Frage was als eine Video-Show zu betrachten ist beantworteten sie bei TII mit Ja und bei der Cirque-Show als Nein. Derzeit fragt das Gericht die Jury ab wie sie die jeweils 38 Fragen beantwortet haben.






Quincy Jones Awarded $9.42 Million in Music Royalties Dispute With Michael Jackson Estate

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/qui...on-1202506100/
Ricardo Lopez

July 26, 2017 | 04:58PM PT
Veteran music producer Quincy Jones prevailed on Wednesday in his dispute over unpaid royalties with the estate of Michael Jackson.

A Los Angeles jury awarded Jones $9.42 ($9,423,695) million in damages, finding that he had been underpaid in royalties for music used in the “This Is It” documentary and two Cirque du Soleil shows.
Related
Quincy Jones
Quincy Jones Testifies Against Michael Jackson Estate: ‘I Was Cheated Out of a Lot of Money’

Jones first sued in 2013, alleging that he was unfairly cut out of posthumous deals by Jackson’s estate to feature his music in the 2009 film and the Cirque shows. He said he was owed $30 million.

During the two-week trial, attorneys for both sides quibbled over how to interpret contract language that governed how Jones’ royalties were calculated.

Jones took the witness stand last week — entering the courtroom in a wheelchair — to explain his views on how he was “cheated out of a lot of money” by the Jackson estate. At issue was the interpretation of two contracts for the albums “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” and “Bad.” Jones’ lawyers contended that his contracts entitle him to significant proceeds from “This Is It,” the backstage concert film released after Jackson’s death, as well as those from two Cirque du Soleil shows.

Related
Quincy Jones Trial
Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson’s Estate Duel Over Contract Wording in Royalties Trial
In handing down their verdict, the jury did not redefine what a “record” is. On the question of whether the Cirque shows or “This Is It” were considered “records,” the jury said no. As to what comprises a “video show” — “This Is It” is applicable, but not the Cirque performances.

Representing the Jackson estate, Howard Weitzman argued that Jackson himself made major contributions to the sound of each song, which rankled Jones, who testified that producers often take the blame for failures while artists get credit for hits.

Currently, the court is polling the jury on how they each answered the 28-question verdict form.

Following the verdict, Jones released the following statement:
“As an artist, maintaining the vision and integrity of one’s creation is of paramount importance. I, along with the team I assembled with Michael, took great care and purpose in creating these albums, and it has always given me a great sense of pride and comfort that three decades after they were originally recorded, these songs are still being played in every corner of the world. This lawsuit was never about Michael, it was about protecting the integrity of the work we all did in the recording studio and the legacy of what we created. Although this judgement is not the full amount that I was seeking, I am very grateful that the jury decided in our favor in this matter. I view it not only as a victory for myself personally, but for artists’ rights overall.”

Wohl ziemlich klar, dass der Estate gegen das Urteil Rechtsmittel einlegen wird.. Der Estate glaubt, dass die Jury nicht qualifiziert ist um vertragliche Klauseln zu interpretieren und es nicht in Ordnung ist das der Richter der Jury diese Befugnis gab. Anm. Der Estate hatte bereits im Vorfeld zum Prozess beantragt, dass wenn die Jury Schadensersatzansprüche feststellt sie nicht befugt werden sollte über Beträge zu entscheiden da das Thema Royalities etc zu kompelx seien. Der Antrag wurde vom Richter abgelehnt. Ein Beispiell für diese Ansicht ist, das Remixe bei der die CBS/Epic erste Bearbeitung angeblich Jones gehört für angefragte Wiederaufnahmen irrtümlicherwiese (von der Jury) zu TII und den Cirque-Shows zugeordnet wurden.

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?

Hier Weizmanns Stellungnahme nach dem Urteil:
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.”
"Während die Jury Quincy Jones 21 Mio. verweigert hat, mehr als 2/3 wie er verlangte vom Estate von Michael Jackson denken wir weiterhin, dass es verkehrt ist ihm Millionen Dollars zu geben zu denen er vertraglich nicht berechtigt ist. Das würde die Rechtssprache reinterpretieren und effektiv Verträge neu schreiben unter denen Mr. Jones lebte seit mehr als 3 Jahrzehnten, zugebend vor der Jury, dass er niemals seine Verträge las und der Jury mitteilte das Verträge Montracts sind auf die er nichts gibt. Jeder Betrag über und jenseits von dem wozu er in den Verträgen berechtigt ist, ist zu viel und es unfair gegenüber Michaels Erben. Auch wenn Mr. Jones dies als Sieg für die Rechte von Künstlern bezeichnet, der wahre Künstler ist Michael Jackson und es ist sein Geld."

Und noch aus einem weiterer Artikel:

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.”
Howard Weitzmann bgzl des Geldbetrages habe er zahlreiche nach-Prozess-Optionen um das Urteil zu überstimmen

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.
"Wir hätten wahrscheinlich einen Betrag von 2,5 MIo. ab abwärts nicht herausgefordert. sagt Weitzmann.

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.
Was Weitzmann reizt ist das Jones das Urteil als Sieg für die Rechte von Künstlern darstellt.

“The jury’s verdict was wrong,” he said. “The real artist is Michael Jackson, and it is his money.”
Das Urteil der Jury war verkehrt, sagt er. Der wirkliche Künstler ist Michael Jackson und es ist sein Geld.

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

http://nypost.com/2017/07/29/michael...-jones-ruling/

Offensichtlich hat der Estate einen Antrag auf einen neuen Prozess gestellt. Eine Anhörung dazu findet am 22.09. statt:

09/22/2017 at 08:30 am in Department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for New Trial(JNOV)

Michael Jackson Estate Expects New Trial in ‘Next Couple of Months’ in Dispute With Quincy Jones
Michael Jackson Estate erwartet neuen Prozess in den kommenden Monaten im Streit mit Q. Jones

By http://variety.com/2017/music/news/m...hs-1202548838/

VENICE, Italy – As expected, the Michael Jackson estate is appealing the verdict which in July awarded $9.4 million to music producer Quincy Jones in damages for allegedly unpaid royalties. John Branca, co-executor of the late singer’s estate, expects the case to go back in front of a jury “in the next couple of months.”

In an interview with Variety during the Venice Film Festival, where a new 3-D version of the 1983 “Thriller” video directed by John Landis world-premiered Monday, Branca said that “fairly serious errors were made in the trial.”
"vielfache ernsthafte Fehler wurden beim Prozess gemacht" so Branca.

“So they are going to seek to overturn the judgment and then appeal it,” he added. Branca also specified that this action is the domain of the estate’s chief attorney, Howard Weitzman.
"So sie werden versuchen das Urteil zu überstimmen und dann in die Berufung gehen" sagt Branca, der auch sagt, dass dies die Domäne vom Chef-Anwalt vom Estate Howard Weitzmann sein wird.

“We’ve always tried to pay Quincy fairly, and he should be,” Branca said. “His work with Michael was incredible…So he deserves to be paid fairly. And he [was].”
"Wir haben immer versucht Quincy fair zu bezahlen und das sollte er auch:" sagt Branca. "Seine Arbeit mit Michael war unglaublich... so er verdient es fair bezahlt zu werden. Und das wurde er."

The verdict in Quincy’s favor, in a Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 26, revolved around alleged breach of contract over agreements signed in the 1970s and ’80s, when Jones and Jackson worked on three records – “Off the Wall,” “Thriller” and “Bad” – which collectively have sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. Jones said during the trial that the master recordings for those albums were improperly remixed to deprive him of royalties and production fees that he was entitled to.

The dispute largely concerns profits from the concert film “This Is It,” the world’s highest-grossing concert film.

The Jackson estate says that an accounting error did cause Jones to miss out on some royalties, but put that figure at roughly $392,000 – a tiny fraction of both the $30 million that the producer sought and the $9.4 million that the jury ultimately awarded him.

“What you had there was a jury trying to understand fairly complicated recording contract provisions and accounting provisions that, quite frankly, both without a law school education and years in the music business, most people would find difficult to understand. So that appeal is being processed,” said Branca, who predicted that the case will be “back in front of a jury in the next couple of months.”
"Was Du hattest war eine Jury, die versucht hat komplizierte Plattenvertragsprovisionen zu verstehen und Provisionenbuchhaltung zu machen, aber ohne eine Rechtschulausbildung zu haben und Jahre im Musikgeschäft zu sein werden es die meisten Leute schwer haben es zu durchschauen. So diese Berufung geht voran sagt Branca, der erwaretet, dass der Fall " zurück sein wird vor einer Jury in den nächsten Monaten."
___________________________________________
Derweil gibt Quincy Jones weitere IVs. So an die LA-Times, behauptet nach Michaels Tod habe Dileo den Estate übernommen und habe 50 MIo. für TII kassiert und worüber er natürlich stolz sein kann: Jermaine habe ihn angerufen nachdem er die Klage gegen den Estate eingereicht habe. "Die ganze Familie stünde hinter ihm", lol Weitzmann in einem Gegenstatement. Dileo habe keine Millionen von TII erhalten und die Erben von Michael stehen nicht hinter Jones Klage.


Quincy Jones reflects on his career and relationship with Michael Jackson http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...905-story.html