http://prince.org/msg/8/329532

http://prince.org/msg/5/329484

Each thread referenced by each mod pointing to the other and locking as dupe

Child, its a madhouse

But I seriously think some orgers act like they won the lottery whenever they see a repost

Harlepolis said:

Mods...can you please re-open one of those threads?

Harlepolis said:

hall monitor tattle tail central

SoulAlive said:

Harlepolis said:

ahahah

AW HELL! WHAT THE FUCK!?!

How you lock BOTH threads.

Seriously mods, seriously???

I guess THIS will be the thread to discuss Jill Scott being sued

Jill Scott sued for millions by record label

from the hollywood reporter:

&B superstar Jill Scott was sued this morning by her longtime record label, which is accusing the multi-platinum songstress of skipping out halfway through a six-album contract and potentially owing millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by L.A.-based Hidden Beach Records, claims that the label and its founder, Steve McKeever, helped launch Scott's career and nurtured her into a Grammy-winning singer-songwriter but was unceremoniously dumped in October after a 10-plus year relationship.

"Hidden Beach is shocked by her decision not only because Scott has apparently chosen to leave the Hidden Beach family," the complaint reads, "but also because Scott is contractually required to deliver three more albums to Hidden Beach."

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and damages owed under California's Labor Code Sec. 2855. That statute, sometimes known as the "De Havilland Law" because it stems from actress Oliva De Havilland's successful fight in the '40s against long-term studio deals, provides that talent cannot be bound by personal services contracts for longer than seven years. Hidden Beach isn't disputing that Scott's deal violated the seven-year rule but the law carves out a requirement that certain recording artists who wish to terminate their lengthy deals must reimburse their labels in the amount the labels would have received under the terms of the contracts. Since breaking onto the scene with the double-platinum selling "Who Is Jill Scott?" album in 2000, Scott's studio albums (and live albums) have generated millions in revenue. So while Hidden Beach's alleged damages are unspecified in the complaint, under California law they could total several million dollars.

The lawsuit is unusually detailed in its description of the small label's close relationship with Scott. She clearly was the center of attention for McKeever. The complaint alleges he paid her million-dollar advances when he wasn't required to, allowed her to keep merchandising revenue, paid $450,000 to fund a concert DVD that Scott later asked not be released, bought her lavish gifts and indulged her desire to slow her recording schedule to pursue an acting career (Scott has appeared in the films "Houndog," "Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?" and HBO's "No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency").

"Hidden Beach feels that Jill Scott is an incredibly talented artist," the company's lawyer Lawrence Hinkle told us. "No one regrets that this lawsuit had to be filed more than Hidden Beach, but its hands were tied and it had no other option."

A call to Scott's attorney Stephen Barnes was not immediately returned.

DaPrettyMan said:

thoughts?



.
[Edited 2/4/10 23:59pm]

SoulAlive said:

Hard to say. With the industry being what it is (isn't) these days.....she may be better floating an offer...or going it alone. Jill has the talent to make it.

JamFanHot said:

If this is true,it's mighty bold of her to just walk away from a recording contract and sign a new deal elsewhere It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I'm shocked. She basically branded Hidden Beach. I wonder if she think she'll earn that star treatment at a label under a larger company? [I doubt it].

Can't wait for her to respond to the lawsuit.

She has been with them for over ten years. It would be a good look if they bid her farewell and wished her the best. Doesn't make sense to me when labels start to strong arm their roster when obviously there was a strong commitment/loyalty previously that has naturally come to an end... it's not like she tried to bounce right after her smash debut.

http://prince.org/msg/8/329532
That was the more active thread. I reported it for being wrongly locked, and hopefully it'll open back up again. It was a good discussion going. Hopefully someone will open it today.

Cinnie said:

10 years isn't their fault. She owes them six albums. She's delivered only three albums of fully original material. The others have been a collaboration, and two live albums (one with an extra disk of partially unreleased material). Those type of albums don't count toward one's record contract when you sign a six album deal. It's rare that it would count toward the deal. George Michael ended his Sony contract with a greatest hits package, but that was after years of litigation, and his being the loser, in court. It was a rare case. Unless her new label (if she has one) buys out her contract w/ Hidden Beach, she could face some stiff business dealings from Hidden Beach until she sticks to her end of the deal.

Dis a bidness, and she ain't too far gone to see dat yet.

ernestsewell said:

I know in the end a contract is a contract, but what kind of work is the label going to get from their artist when the business relationship goes sour?

Cinnie said:

Who said it went sour? Did Hidden Beach? Jill hasn't said anything about it yet. It's not only a company's responsibility to encourage and take care of their artist, but it's also the artist's responsibility to make great music and give the company something that can be profitable for both parties, listenable, and worth of the time and huge money a company puts into the product (from studio fees, advances, etc - some of which the artist has to pay back anyway). If HB wasn't nurturing Jill like they could or should (she was their first artist ever signed, and the baby doll of the label for a long time), then that's their fault. If Jill didn't feel at home anymore, or felt stifled by HB, my question is, "Did she tell that to the label?" Did she sit down and talk to someone about it, and ask for more support, whether it's in promotion, a paycheck, - whatever it takes to get her album out there even more. It's a very symbiotic relationship, and when one stops eating, both suffer.

So it goes sour for many reason, but who says that's not recoverable? If HB wanted to just let her go, they could. I would bet that's written into her contract, that the label (not the artist - note the hypocrisy) has the right to end the contract without notice or reason. But at this point, they aren't dropping her, they're wanting 3 more albums from her. That might speak to her being an asset to the company. But it seems Jill doesn't feel the company is an asset to her anymore. I'm still interested to hear the rest of this story. This is so little for us to go on.

Jill Scott Responds to Hidden Beach Lawsuit
Feb 5, 2010



This is a statement from the representatives of Jill Scott:

"The lawsuit filed on February 3, 2010 by Hidden Beach Recordings against Jill Scott has no legal merit and misrepresents the history of Ms. Scott's relationship with the label.

Jill Scott has the legal right to terminate her recording contract with Hidden Beach Recordings under California's 7-year rule, where she had been a recording artist for more than 10 years. During her time at Hidden Beach Recordings, she released several highly successful albums. At this time, with many creative projects in the works which include music, film and television roles and product development, Ms. Scott looks forward to continuing to further her artistry and building the Jill Scott brand in other creative environments."


http://www.prnewswire.com...30102.html

Identity said:

Interesting law.

Read this:

The California State Senate will hold a hearing Sept. 5 in Sacramento to begin investigation of the so-called "Seven-Year Statute." Don Henley and Courtney Love are expected to testify at the hearing, which will be held by the newly formed Select Committee on the Entertainment Industry. The committee
is chaired by state Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles, a former music agent at the William Morris Agency.

California's Seven-Year Statute limits the amount of time an individual can be held to a contract for personal services. It was amended in 1987 to provide a limited exception for recording contracts. A number of artists?including Henley, Love, Luther Vandross, and Metallica have sued their labels under the statute; however, the suits have always been settled before a ruling could be delivered on the statute's viability.

"There is clearly some ambiguity in the law, and we will investigate how to clarify the law for both artists and their employers," Murray says in a statement. Virtually every other industry in California?with the exception of the record industry?is held to personal-service contracts that cannot legally run longer than seven years. I am aware that there are two sides to this issue; that is precisely the reason this hearing is necessary.

Given that law.....D'angelo can't possibly be bound by his Virgin records contract.

ernestsewell said:

Will be interesting to see if anything definitive comes of this for recording artists.

Graycap23 said:

D'Angelo is presently signed to RCA/Sony.

Identity said:

So what is the hold up? Alan Leeds stated that Virgin was holding D up.

On D's Myspace Page there is a banner reading 'Album & Tour Summer 2010'.

Identity said:

This is what I was thinking when I said "she had been with them for over 10 years...." But I wasn't sure when (if ever) Jill might have re-signed with the label.

Identity said:

lol.....I hope that is correct but I won't be holding my breath.

Graycap23 said:

Why do I get the feeling that you have an alterior motive for this comment? Bad Graycap.

Seriously though considering the line-up of other artists on the Hidden Beach label ... uh, Jill seemed like the most successful one in terms of stage/screen/record appeal.

Ifsixwuz9 said: