LOS ANGELES - The Smashing Pumpkins are suing Virgin Records, saying the record label has illegally used their name and music in promotional deals that hurt the band's credibility with fans.


In a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, the rockers said they have "worked hard for over two decades to accumulate a considerable amount of goodwill in the eyes of the public," and that Virgin's use of the band in a "Pepsi Stuff" promotion with Amazon.com and Pepsi Co. threatens their reputation for "artistic integrity."

Virgin released the Smashing Pumpkins' music for more than 17 years, but the only active agreement between the two parties, the lawsuit claims, is a deal granting Virgin permission to sell digital downloads of the band's songs. The agreement does not give Virgin the right to use the band in promotional campaigns to sell outside products, the lawsuit said.

The band members said they would "never grant such authority to Virgin, or any other entity."

An after-hours call to Virgin Records wasn't immediately returned.

The lawsuit demands that Virgin pay with the profits earned in the promotion and asks for an injunction against using the Pumpkins' name or music in the future.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...g_pumpkins

so they used their music for promotion without even paying them?

"Artistic Integrity"?? The band, who sells Billy Corgan getting together with the previously sacked drummer, a random chick bassist and a random american-asian minority guitarist, as a Smashing Pumpkins "reunion" worries about "artistic integrity"?? LOL, very funny!
[Edited 3/25/08 11:39am]

PatrickS77 said:

Not to mention selling the same album with different bonus tracks to milk their hardcore fanbase for all they're worth.

I have been questioning Billy Corgans integrity myself over the last few years but I can kind of see where he is coming from with this. I'm sure he is aware that most people see the whole reunion as a sell out and this would only damge their credibility further.

PurpleKnight said:

I agree (there are at least 2 verisons of the album with different bonus tracks) but they have a point with the lawsuit.

This lawsuit might not have any "legs" though. Some bands, like the Beatles for one, have an exclusive deal, which means that their albums are the only way you can get their music. Thats why when you see CD's called "best of the 60's" or "british invasion" etc..You will never see a Beatle track, and if you do its probably some crap they recorded in the Hamburg Germany clubs in the late 50's that sounds like it was underwater. Not many artists have this option, Springsteen does, and others like U2,Jovi,REM,Depeche Mode etc.. all have a choice of the compilation they are put on.