April 9, 2010

R&B singer Jill Scott is hitting back at Hidden Beach Records, claiming the indie label caused her millions of dollars in damages for mismanagement of her career, according to legal papers filed in Los Angeles Supreme Court.

Scott's cross-complaint claims breach of contract; tortious interference with contract; accounting; misappropriation of likeness; common law right of publicity; and false advertising under the Lanham Act.

The artist exited the label in October 2009 under the protection of California's seven-year rule, also known as Labor Code Section 2855 or the "De Havilland Law." Named after actress Olivia De Havilland's successful fight in the '40s against long-term studio deals, it provides that talent cannot be bound by personal services contracts, including recording contracts, for more than seven years.

In turn, the LA-based indie label - she recorded for Hidden Beach for 10 years - sued her in February, claiming she walked before fulfilling the terms of her deal. Hidden Beach has released six Jill Scott projects, including live CDs and a DVD, that have scanned 4.7 million units, according to Nielsen Soundscan.

"The allegations contained in Jill's cross-complaint are without merit and apparently meant to distract from what this lawsuit is really all about - Hidden Beach's right to recover damages based on her failure to fulfill her contractual obligations," wrote attorney Lawrence Hinkle, who represents Hidden Beach, in an e-mailed statement to Billboard. "We are truly saddened that Jill has taken this course of action especially since Hidden Beach's extraordinary support of her has been unwavering over the years in helping her achieve her dream of getting to where she is now in her career. Jill's allegations also run to counter to her own previous public and private acknowledgments concerning Hidden Beach and its effectiveness in supporting and advancing her career. Hidden Beach continues to hope that this dispute is resolved soon but until then, it will defend itself vigorously in court."

The artist is seeking compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages, an injunction against Hidden Beach from using her name and/or likeness without Scott's permission, and attorney's fees.

http://www.billboard.biz/...79e3844e3f

bad form, jill scott. HB carried you.

I agree. I think Jill blew this.

Oh well Jill will be doing the chitlin' circuit in two-three years.

Timmy84 said:

No she won't

Jill's done tv shows, movies, successful albums, and has a solid fanbase



and this news of the countersuit hit days after the news of HB suing her, so it's kinda old

If it were not for HB we would never had heard of her outside of Philly....yet, i do not put it past a label to exploit an artist, especially one who signed a contract thinking that she would get noticed (which she did)but she did not read the fine print...which most artists don't. Artist reps don't tell the artist to do so because on the front end they get their money.

I want to hear her side. Who knows how her shit was mismanaged?

what that hell is "common law right of publicity"?

errant said:

The right of publicity makes it unlawful to use another's identity for commercial advantage without permission.

Cinnie said:

what, in like, their promo of her albums? lord.

errant said:

Kim69 said:

True. I can only hope the best for her in this regard.

bboy87 said:

She's a really good actress. I just watched "The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency" and she is great in it (even if the far too dramatic last episodes were a let down). I hope the show comes back but it has been in jeopardy for a while.

jeidee said:

...and vice versa. I can't recall any other artists with sucess close to her off that label.

looks like things could get messy.Alot of times,with these types of lawsuits,the artist is forbidden to release new music elsewhere until the suit is settled.Wasn't Jill preparing a new CD for release this summer? It may get delayed.

bboy87 said:

She sell's out concert tickets in no time when she comes to London ...There like gold dust... and she's never really done a tour over here...

SoulAlive said:

Yes, this has all the makings of a nasty court battle. Barring a last-minute resolution, the album she intends to release later this year will be the first casualty.

jeidee said:

WTF? Are you a rep for Hidden Beach or something? Jill made them a lot of money. How the hell did they "carry" her? I guess Al B. Sure and Tony Rich are the label's big money makers, huh? Come on. Jill is the only reason they're still able to operate. If not for her, they would have crashed and burned with all of the other little lables just a few years ago.

JamFanHot said:

I'm curious. How long do you think she should stay signed to a label in an era where units are on the way out of the door? She delivered her six recordings and the label wants to discount the live CD. She should give them a CD full of fart songs and callit "Jill Scott's Greatestshits" and give them the finger on the way out of the door.
I don't understand you pro record label people. I guess some people like to see artists exploited.
They had a good run but she wants to move on. This is them wanting to squeeze a few more pennies out of her (musically).

BlaqueKnight said:

BlaqueKnight said:

i don't work for anyone, but i do like my music accessible. you know, able to obtain or purchase (read: not searching for "jill scott blogspot" to get her new material). and i like my artists to be able to promote their shows, serve their fans, and be able to make their peace.

i've gathered from this thread that jill scott is going "independent" now, which will make her so much "cooler" (read: broke-r) but way less accessible. but she could ink a deal with target for her next album and open a ridiculously expensive website with her music videos and re-recordings of old songs as an incentive. that indie strategy works. it has worked so well for prince. me'shell ndegeocello is indie now and we all know how easy it is to find out when/where she is playing or when her new albums are released (heavy sarcasm). they are both quite accessible now, right? if you hang out on their stoop, which the masses obviously do not (we all know how many units lotus sold).

i am pro-record label because they have the means to get the artists out there, even if they are "poorly managed". at least they are managed..

PS your polite response made no sense: you knock HB for, you know, breaking jill scott and giving her creative freedom but then you talk about how they'd be broke/done without her. an island she ain't.
[Edited 4/13/10 12:47pm]

Is she really going "independent" now,or moving to a major label?

BlaqueKnight said:

Because some people don't know what the hell they are talking about.


=====
[Edited 4/14/10 4:30am]

jeidee said:

Quote where I "knocked Hidden Beach for giving her creative freedom."
You can't because that's a FLAT OUT LIE. Her creative freedom wasn't the issue. Leaving the label was.
She seemed to have a pretty decent relationship with her label - until it was time to go.
I'm sure she'd be thrilled to know that some of her so-called "fans" would rather see her chained to a deal she wants out of because they are too lazy to go to a site and click a link and support her DIRECTLY. Nope, some would rather a record label take 70-85% of the profits so that a CD can sit up in Target or Wal-Mart somewhere.