[img:$uid]http://i56.tinypic.com/2ryn1ck.jpg[/img:$uid]

September 2010

Bob Marley's family lost a lawsuit seeking the copyrights to several of the late Jamaican reggae singer's best-known recordings.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said the UMG Recordings unit of Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group is the rightful owner of copyrights to five albums that Marley had recorded between 1973 and 1977 for Island Records.

The albums "Catch a Fire," "Burnin'," "Natty Dread," "Rastaman Vibrations" and "Exodus" were recorded with Marley's band The Wailers. They include some of Marley's best-known songs, including "Get Up, Stand Up," "I Shot the Sheriff," "No Woman, No Cry" and "One Love."

Marley died of skin cancer in 1981 at age 36.

Friday night's ruling is a defeat for Marley's widow Rita and nine children who had sought to recover millions of dollars in damages over UMG's effort to "exploit" what they called "the quintessential Bob Marley sound recordings."

L. Peter Parcher and Peter Shukat, who are lawyers for the family, did not immediately return calls seeking comment. UMG spokesman Peter LoFrumento said the company is pleased with Cote's ruling.

Marley's family accused UMG of intentionally withholding royalties from their company Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd, and ignoring a 1995 agreement assigning them rights under the original recording agreements, court papers show.

It also accused UMG of failing as required to consult with them on key licensing decisions, including the use of Marley's music as "ringtones" on AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile phones, the papers show.

But Cote concluded that Marley's recordings were "works made for hire" as defined under U.S. copyright law, entitling UMG to be designated the owner of those recordings, for both the initial 28-year copyright terms and for renewals.

"Each of the agreements provided that the sound recordings were the 'absolute property' of Island," Cote wrote. "Whether Marley would have recorded his music even if he had not entered the recording agreements with Island is beside the point."

She added that it was irrelevant that Marley might have maintained artistic control over the recording process. What mattered, she said, was that Island had a contractual "right" to accept or reject what he produced.

Cote also denied the Marley family's request for a ruling upholding its claims over digital downloads, citing ambiguity in a 1992 royalties agreement.

http://www.reuters.com/ar...inmentNews

catch-22, but sad sad story

Maybe karma from an earlier successful powerplay by the Marleys to cut original and longtime bassist, Aston "Family Man" Barrett out of any royalties from recordings of the same era.

DakutiusMaximus said:

Maybe karma from an earlier successful powerplay by the Marleys to cut original and longtime bassist, Aston "Family Man" Barrett out of any royalties from recordings of the same era.

I heard about that... and from what I read it seemed like the family didn't understand contracts which can explain why the courts ruled against them.

Timmy84 said:

DakutiusMaximus said:

Maybe karma from an earlier successful powerplay by the Marleys to cut original and longtime bassist, Aston "Family Man" Barrett out of any royalties from recordings of the same era.

I heard about that... and from what I read it seemed like the family didn't understand contracts which can explain why the courts ruled against them.

Yep. And I feel sorry for them, too. It would be terrible to not have control over any part of a legacy as large and powerful as Bob's. But this case was always going to end this way as the legality of the issues at hand are very clear. As we know they aren't alone in this regard. Definitely not the first artist or artist's family to be screwed by "work for hire" contracts.

Cerebus said:

Timmy84 said:

I heard about that... and from what I read it seemed like the family didn't understand contracts which can explain why the courts ruled against them.

Yep. And I feel sorry for them, too. It would be terrible to not have control over any part of a legacy as large and powerful as Bob's. But this case was always going to end this way as the legality of the issues at hand are very clear. As we know they aren't alone in this regard. Definitely not the first artist or artist's family to be screwed by "work for hire" contracts.