Jump to content

How to get the rest of CD released with California Labor Code Section 2855


grigori

Recommended Posts

The whole basis on this line of thinking is that the contracts signed by Buckethead and the rest back in the day could be viewed as unconscionable as the contracts would have been signed in good faith and as one would expect royalties realistically. CLC 2855 happens to be rule built on a court case for an unconscionable contract. Proving the unconscionable terms of a contract in essence is the reason that people are able to exit them, not just the verbiage in CLC 2855. This makes CLC 2855 convenient for artists under contract with record companies.

Many artists have used this against record companies and were able to take the creative works with them. In fact CLC 2855 was used by some bands you probably like:

In the same fashion as Braxton, other high profile artists have used Section 2855 as a lever in the renegotiation of - or exit from - an existing agreement. In 1992, recording star Luther Vandross filed a suit against Epic Records in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming he was no longer bound to his 1981 contract. The very next year, former Eagle Don Henley became embroiled in a Los Angeles Superior Court action with his label, Geffen Records, wherein Henley sought to terminate his 1984 contract. Thereafter, in 1994, Henley's Eagle brethren Glenn Frey was involved in a similar lawsuit when MCA Records sued Frey after he attempted to end his deal. In that same year, the band Metallica challenged its contact with Elektra Records when it asked the court to dismiss the band from its contract. In 1997 the Smashing Pumpkins notified Virgin Records that it would not render future services to the label under the contract it signed in 1991. These disputes have all been settled out of court, and thus the judiciary has not had a chance to rule on the implications of Section 2855.

http://benmclane.blogspot.com/2011/12/music-businesslaw-tips-breaking-record_22.html

If you don't agree with this idea then that's fine. This is just food for thought. I thought I'd at least give you guys some hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a rule in California (California Labor Code Section 2855) where entertainers cannot be forced to work for any company under contract for more than 7 years. This ruling works well for musicians under contract with record companies as Don Henley had against Geffen.

I think it could be used by the former band members though. Buckethead would likely get royalties if his music was released but since it won't or can't, that becomes an impossibility and unconscionable. The former members Buckethead, Robin, could force Axl to release Chinese Leftovers (ex-Axl) to the fans delight.

I've read your post 5 times, and I still don't understand your logic? It doesn't make any sense.

The whole basis on this line of thinking is that the contracts signed by Buckethead and the rest back in the day could be viewed as unconscionable as the contracts would have been signed in good faith and as one would expect royalties realistically. CLC 2855 happens to be rule built on a court case for an unconscionable contract. Proving the unconscionable terms of a contract in essence is the reason that people are able to exit them, not just the verbiage in CLC 2855. This makes CLC 2855 convenient for artists under contract with record companies.

How were their contracts unconscionable? Were they prevented from performing with anyone else during their time in GN'R? They quit the band of their own free will, they weren't tied or forced to remain recording with the band by contract.

This thread is pretty daft mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an artist wrote hist best music with the understanding that it would be released as record for which you would be compensated then it would be unconscionable to deny someone the right to take those recording with them (to a competitor) if the record has no realistic expectations to be released or is intentionally sabotaged.

Edited by grigori
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an issue independent of being paid to tour etc.

Musicians do that with record companies. It's not insane.

I actually can't think of another example where a musician's works were held in development heck by another artist.

If Axl Rose was under an alleged contract where the record company had legal domain over the record and refused to allow it to be released, would you agree with the record company?

Edited by grigori
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People may not agree with what I said. I may not have been clear in what I was writing. People may disagree.

People can escape though, from unconscionable contracts and given the development heck CD 2 has been in, its now out this world to believe the contract terms are not being held up in good faith given how little CD2 has progressed.

Again this thread was just started to discuss an idea on how to fork CD 2 out into the open. Anyone got any better ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already replied to that post. With the expectation of royalties, then it is unfair.

If Axl Rose was under an alleged contract where the record company had legal domain over the record and refused to allow it to be released, would you agree with the record company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely wrong with your interpretation of §2855. Wrong. Period.

As you saw fit to repost your own post, I will give an excerpt from my post on page one:

From what I read of the law, it has absolutely no use at all in forcing a musician who pays another musician to play on a record to force its release.

The only way they could force its release is if the former employees have majority ownership of both the sound recording of the music and song publishing. But that has nothing to do with §2855.

I will guarantee Axl gave no control over the sound recordings or publishing of the songs - plus, that's a contract claim not an action based on §2855.

You are completely misinterpreting it. Trying to see an element in §2855 that doesn't exist. I take it you've studied a commercial law class in undergrad, are a 1L or read lots. But, an interpreter of black letter law in actual judicial use - no. Your claim is ripe with a 12(b)6 dismissal from the on-set.

Edited by hellobeatle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your angle, but it's horribly implausible. None of the former members are going to be willing to go against Axl's team of lawyers to force the release of a record that's not going to make much money anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that kind of stuff happens ALL the time. record companies shelve records constantly.

There's a lot of "lost" albums that the record company decided not to release, but they rarely ever give it to the artist. Years go by, and if the artist is big enough, usually some wheeling and dealing is done then, and some of it might surface on a box set. There's albums that artists shelve - Neil Young and Prince prob. have the highest numbers of shelved projects, or wound up using them on other albums, but whether it's due to record companies going out of business, telling the artist they can have it for 6 figures or making it some ridiculous deal where it would be too expensive, they wind up sitting around collecting dust. Sometimes they wind up being bootlegged, and the demand winds up making the record company change their mind. Dave Matthews Band "Busted Stuff" wound up having 3 hits off of it, and it was the one the album company told Dave to scrap and record something more upbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're being paid to record and tour, regardless of whether your recordings ever get released.

could you imagine the insanity if session musicians could take back their work (which they've been paid for) simply because it wasn't released?

If a session musician is going in to write and record music, and not just play someone else's songs, it could depend on whether or not they already submitted it for the copyright, or it had been released. That does happen, a piece of a song getting recycled and changed a bit, but they still have the rights to the song.

But in this case, there were artists that came in and their parts weren't used, so they just get a "thank you". Or sometimes the playing is horrible on there and they wind up having someone fill in, sometimes as a favor to a friend, and get credited under a pseudonym, or not at all. It's like what Michael Jackson said, you can hear him on all sorts of sessions in the late 70s-early 80s singing in the background, but he didn't take any credit for it. Same with Jimmy Page - he has all sorts of solos on all sorts of singles and albums, but could you imagine trying to claim the hundreds of recordings he was on? If he was doing 5 sessions a day, who even knows if he documented half of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...