- This topic has 82 replies, 8,953 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
saw this on HU this morning.
James and DâArcy sue Virgin Records over 2005 deal with Billy
July 25th, 2008 by jjb
tags: legal, d’arcy wretzky, record labels, james iha, billy corgan, newsTime Warnerâs TMZ.com has the filing (.pdf), and they describe the suit thusly:
James Yoshinobu Iha and DâArcy Wretzky-Brown claims [sic] in 2005, five years after the band broke up, Virgin negotiated a deal solely with frontman Billy Corgan for electronic transmissions (ringtones, download computer files, etc), without ever getting the consent of Iha or Wretzky-Brown.
The filing claims that the 2005 negotiation violated the terms of a May 11, 1998 contract between Virgin Records and the Smashing Pumpkins.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks bullet, for bringing this up. I had an email about this in my inbox from 1 of my Media Contacts, unfortunately I was not able to read it sooner to have this news \"first\".
Anyway, I wrote a little article on the homepage of SPfreaks.com about it. It’s interesting news. You guys might find it also interesting, because the whole case can be read in the lawyer’s papers. HipstersUnited has a link to those papers also, by the way, but we have a copy in our Collection now also.
-
-
-
-
Well at least we know D’arcy is alive now
[/quote:wt2rmz0j]so true ^ maybe we will see a picture.
i wonder what Jimmy thinks though. if it was just a deal just with Billy he must have been excluded too.
Virgin must be kicking themselves for ever signing the Pumpkins with all the drama that has come from it.
i’m glad they did though. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
well..it was about time for d’arcy to show up!!it’s been like 9 years or something….i still wonder though …if J and D act like that on such a matter (i suppose that they don’t do it because they didn’t get enough, like billy) what will they do when the gish thing will come up?probably they will sue billy’s @@s off and the thing will get really ugly!!! or not…i hope.amyways, i would really like to know what you think about that!!!
ps
the photo is eerie!!!!but it’s cool!! lol -
-
-
-
-
-
-
ok, i read some of the papers, now i am easliy confused, so correct me if i am wrong
billy had his lawyer draw up papers that included james and d’arcy, but virgin never had them sign it. even though billy put thier names on the paper.
right?[/quote:1d8lw7yp]
yeah me too confused. I thought Virgin drew up papers for Billy to sign that had line for the other 2 to sign. So then Virgin probably got billy’s signature and then thought they could get away with out paying thejames and D’arcy because Billy signed it…probably some dirty sneaky hsit from Virgin would be my guess…so now they got caught!. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i’m writing this personally
and thus NOT as a member of PMMthe plaintiff complaint as reflected in the PDF is pretty fucking interesting.
for one it states that TSP as per say somewhere in may 98 as BC, JI and DW, so excluding JC.
the complaint NEVER mentions any new or renewed contract including JC.
that’s pretty interesting/
as TSP V2.0 is wholly credited to BC+JC.as for the plaintiff complaint
Virgin seems to have reached agreement with BC.
JI + DW or their lawyers know details of that agreement (it’s in the papers they do).
BC has been payed royalties for the reached agreement distribution of songs.
Plaintiffs claim they too not only would have to sign before releasing those digital files, they’d also be entitled to royalties.
which seems to be quite fair on both counts…curious fact – plaintiffs go on to claim Virgin did not respond to their calls/pleas….
now that’s curious – becuase Virgin indeed does need to know TSP = not only BC.
as per the 1998 contract – TSP were BC, JI and DW.now TSP is BC + JC… i never understood if that case was settled…
if you can that easily switch band names in a way from Zwan to TSP…..
to be able to play old stuff et al….
also an interesting matter!as for the gish box – no idea who will release that.
for all i know TSP is free from contract and do whatever they want….
With TSP legally still being the team that did it… so BC,JC,JI and DW.
I guess, apart from approval as plantiffs seek in this case…
JI and DW i think totally righfully claim a part in the contract and possible subsequent damages becasue Virgin seemed to have f_cked up in assuming reaching a deal with BC was enough….if you know any legal english these papers a great to read….
i kinda get the feeling there’s much more contact between BC on one side and JI/Dw on the other….well – wait and see
alltebest-s -
-
-
-
well, first of all i really think that this text is easy to understand (ok not every little detail but its rough idea)-. jimmy was not in the band then so he did not sign anything. he was a member and is. if he is to claim anything, that would be from 1988- 1997 and from 2005 up to now. as far as adore stuff is concerned i suppose he cannot claim anything. he didn’t have to do anything with this material (eventhough he perfoms it live-that’s a question). the same goes for james and d’arcy from 2005 up to now (it is quite clear why).
now one thing that has been straighten out is that james and d’arcy do not accuse corgan of anything (that’s good). the question that raises is what is going to happen with the pre-gish release, as stated in smashingpumpkins.com and what is going to happen with all the original member and their claimings as far as royalties on this particular release is concerned.
one more question is wether the pumpkins (in this case i suppose corgan) have the full royalties on their stuff. i hope they do because companies are sh@@@y with that kind of things (actually they act as pimps-excuse me for my expression -that’s why royalties and rights are crap)
finally, i could not understand wether smashingpumpkins.com (that is corgan’s and jimmy’s \"voice\" on the net) is positive, negative or mediocre as far as this action is concerned.
anyways, it is interesting to see what it’s going to happen…(and i hope for some new d’arcy photos-ok i know i’m stupid…lol)ps
i still believe that this catcake pic is eerie…. -
A little more news emerged from sp.com.
James Iha & D’Arcy Wretzky sue EMI
As reported earlier this week across the web, former Pumpkins James Iha and D’arcy Wretzky have filed a lawsuit against former record label Virgin (EMI). TMZ.com even supplied us with a colorful headline: Smashing Pumpkins Lose Their Virginity.
After quickly reading through the documents posted by TMZ, it can be seen that the problem at hand stems from a contract with Virgin signed by D’arcy, James, and Billy back in 1998. Because of their success with Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie, Virgin was willing to negotiate the terms of the contract to restrict distribution of SP music through new technology unless both parties (SP & Virgin) agreed to the terms. Apparently, sometime in 2006, an amendment to the contract was signed to allow Virgin to distribute SP music through digital transmission. This corresponds roughly to when Smashing Pumpkins songs began showing up on iTunes. It could be surmised that the amendment was not signed by D’arcy and James, yet affected royalties or other sums that belonged to them. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages.
It is important to note that the lawsuit does not imply wrong-doing by any members of the band, past or present, but instead that Virgin may have breached its initial contract with James and D’arcy.
So what does this mean to The Smashing Pumpkins?
The lawsuit is not filed against any members of the band. It is directly aimed at Virgin who is accused of not paying either former Pumpkin their share of digital royalties. It seems that the current line-up of the band is in the clear, although it would appear there may still be ramifications for future Smashing Pumpkins releases.
The upcoming Gish Box Set, scheduled for release in early 2009, may be affected by the outcome of this lawsuit. No details have yet emerged regarding in what way the proposed release would be affected, but it can be assumed that Virgin still owns some rights to the Gish material. Gish was released on Caroline Records, a subsidiary of Virgin.
If the Gish Box Set does suffer from current legal battles, the outcome of this lawsuit could affect more than just the parties directly involved. Those waiting patiently for their next piece of the \"Pumpkin Pie\" may have to wait a little longer, or wait indefinitely.
Smashingpumpkins.com will continue to supply details as they become available.
-
-
-
You know what? It still could turn out a bit messy and nasty. I don’t know the details exactly of course, but when Billy Corgan signed the contract in early 2005 (not in 2006 as PMM states) for this digital releases deal with EMI/Virgin, was he aware that James and D’Arcy needed to sign also?
When I check the press release of \"True Power. True Faith.\" dated 2005/03/21 ( http://www.spfreaks.com/Default.aspx?pa … S&item=931 , see last pic), on there it clearly states \"Virgin/EMI and Billy Corgan collaborate on long-awaited digital release of the Smashing Pumpkins catalog\". Not a word about James and D’Arcy…
For example, when Billy made the move towards Virgin about the digital releases, then he should have contacted James and D’Arcy first to ask \"hey guys, let’s make some cash, are you with me?\". And I wouldn’t blame any bandmember to cash in on some copyright, it’s legal and fair. On the other hand, in other contracts (or within the 1998 contract) it might state that Billy Corgan is allowed to do individual deals for himself as he is the main copyright holder of the music and lyrics. He might even be the only copyright holder for the name Smashing Pumpkins, and in that case, Virgin maybe made no mistake at all! I just don’t know, but it leaves you wondering… In my opinion, at least Virgin with their huge legal department, made a huge mistake to not inform James and D’Arcy in 2005, as co-signers of the 1998 contract. This is not about some cookies and toys, this is about many many thousands of dollars that should be divided properly between parties…
-
-
For the first time in SP history, I’m genuinely saddened by all this.
In the past I just felt, \"Well, it’ll work out, they’re smart people…\"
IF the Gish boxset’s now game over, that’d be very sad indeed, I was/am really looking forward to it. Moreso than any other release.
It’s not looking good for the long-term really, unless Corgan & Co. are communicating behind closed doors and have a few tricks up their sleeves.
I’m selling my Virgin-made items on eBay if all goes awry, a little protest!
* All positive vibes I have head to SPs hereon-in. *
\\m/
\\m/ -
-
-
-
Thanks! No lawsuit without catbread, is my newest rule.
From now on, everytime we talk about lawsuits, somebody brings in the catbread. Right?
But back to topic, I’m with Dazey. I’m looking forward to this Gish box set so much, it’s unbelievable. I realise that now, when they talk about \"The upcoming Gish Box Set, scheduled for release in early 2009, may be affected by the outcome of this lawsuit.\". I’m sure it’s gonna be an awesome release, and a true gem in the Pumpkins back catalog. Fingers crossed…
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah, this one is awesome:
http://students.kennesaw.edu/~jnimer/
Jason Nimer’s Center For The Catbread-ification Of America
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
this amount of money with Virgin Records?"[/quote:1036acqe]
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.
