Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Nov. 2012, Seattle U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik had ruled that 'Godfather of Funk' George Clinton must cede the copyrights to the master recordings of four Fundadelic albums released by Warner Bros. between 1976 and 1981 ' Hardcore Jollies, One Nation Under a Groove, Uncle Jam Wants You and The Electric Spanking of War Babies ' to Seattle-based Hendricks & Lewis to make good on more than $1.5 million in unpaid legal fees. Hendricks & Lewis v. Clinton, C12-0841 (W.D.Wash. 2012). Hendricks & Lewis, which is being represented in its efforts to collect the unpaid tab by Davis Wright Tremaine, racked up at least some of those bills helping the 1997 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee to win control of those copyrights in the first place.
The War Has Begun
Clinton's current effort to assert ownership of his creations began 14 years ago when he sued Bridgeport Music Inc., alleging that his signature had been forged on documents assigning the rights to more than 170 songs he wrote between 1976 and 1983 ' including some of his best-known compositions ' to the Southfield, MI'based publisher and its president, Armen Boladian. In 2001, a federal district court judge in Florida ruled against Clinton and awarded Bridgeport those rights. The company immediately moved to cash in on Clinton's popularity with a new generation of recording artists who had leaned heavily on snippets of his classics in making their own records.
Clinton got a measure of revenge four years later when he reclaimed ownership of the master recordings for the four albums at issue in his dispute with Hendricks & Lewis, by winning a suit against a group that included Bridgeport, former bandmates and one-time business associates. The federal district court that decided the case ruled that Clinton's ownership of the recordings dated to 1993, meaning he was entitled to seek compensation from record companies that had earned royalties on the albums going back that far.
Hendricks & Lewis ' which has represented such other well-known music industry names as Courtney Love, and Jimi Hendrix's father, the late Al Hendrix ' was among the firms Clinton retained to wrest control of those copyrights. The firm's website features a page touting its work for him in trials and appeals in several states. See, www.hllaw.com/firmRepWorkClinton.php. On his bio page, name partner O. Yale Lewis, Jr., a former associate at Davis Wright predecessor firm Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones ' lists Clinton as one of his celebrity clients.
Hendricks & Lewis's work on Clinton's behalf from 2005 to 2008 included suing Capitol Records Inc. and Priority Records in federal district court in California for compensation related to Priority's 2002 rerelease of the four Funkadelic records. That litigation ultimately resulted in what the firm describes as 'a favorable negotiated settlement' that media reports pegged at $1.2 million. See, 'George Clinton in Funk: Accountants Sue Parliament-Funkadelic Star over Fees,' NY Daily News.com. Hendricks & Lewis also represented Clinton in suits against Capitol and Universal Music Group over royalties connected to samples taken from the Funkadelic masters.
By August 2008, though, court filings show the relationship between firm and client had soured, with Hendricks & Lewis cutting ties to Clinton over what it claimed was his failure to pay his bills. Two years later, lawsuits brought by the firm in federal court in California and Washington State led to judgments against Clinton totaling just over $1.7 million. When he failed to pay that tab in full, Hendricks & Lewis returned to court in an attempt to collect directly from his royalty streams. Though a district court judge rejected the move, the firm is appealing that decision.
Clinton, meanwhile, launched a counterattack on the firm via a malpractice suit filed in federal court in Seattle in which he claimed that Hendricks & Lewis had erred in suing Universal for breach of contract and should have hit the company with fraud claims instead. Clinton v. Hendricks & Lewis, C11-1142. (W.D.Wash.) After the suit was dismissed in April 2012, Hendricks & Lewis filed yet another action aimed at recovering the legal fees it claims it is owed. (As of November 2012, court filings show, Clinton had paid the firm $340,000.)
In ruling that the firm could attempt to recoup the unpaid fees by taking ownership of ' or even selling off ' the copyrights on the four Clinton albums, U.S. District Judge Lasnik acknowledged the novelty of his decision. '[T]he court has not found any reported case authorizing the relief afforded herein,' he wrote. For that reason, he stayed his November 27 order for 30 days to allow Clinton time to appeal the ruling. (Judge Lasnik also granted Hendricks & Lewis's motion for an order of contempt against Clinton over his alleged failure to produce documents related to his personal finances.)
Clinton did file an appeal with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and briefs were due April 17. Davis Wright represents Hendricks & Lewis in the case, while Detroit lawyer Jeffrey Thennisch is representing Clinton, with Eric Fong serving as the musician's local counsel.
Unusual Ruling
It doesn't surprise Winston & Strawn partner Michael Elkin ' who chairs that firm's copyright, entertainment, and digital media practice ' that District Judge Lasnik had trouble finding an example of another judge ordering similar relief. 'It's very unusual that you have this kind of situation,' Elkin says. While agreeing that copyrights qualify as property a court can seize and transfer, he says it's much more common for lawyers suing over unpaid fees to go after the revenue streams copyrighted material can produce.
Hendricks & Lewis would almost certainly be happier, Elkin says, to just get the cash directly from Clinton than having to go through the process of trying to squeeze revenue out of the copyrights on its own. 'There's a whole lot of work that goes into this,' Elkin says, adding that law firms are generally 'not in the business of actually exploiting these copyrights.'
Davis Wright litigation partner F. Ross Boundy, who represents Hendricks & Lewis in the matter, doesn't disagree. 'We'd be delighted, of course, if Clinton would say, 'I don't want [the copyrights] to be sold. Here's your money,” says Boundy, adding that his client must now rely on a court-appointed receiver to determine how to create value from the recordings. At the same time, Boundy says, Judge Lasnik's ruling essentially attached a lien on the Clinton copyright. 'It's property that he owns,' Boundy says, 'So it's like any other piece of property.'
Tom Huddleston Jr. is a Staff Reporter for The Am Law Daily, an ALM affiliate of Entertainment Law & Finance.
In Nov. 2012, Seattle U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik had ruled that 'Godfather of Funk' George Clinton must cede the copyrights to the master recordings of four Fundadelic albums released by Warner Bros. between 1976 and 1981 ' Hardcore Jollies, One Nation Under a Groove, Uncle Jam Wants You and The Electric Spanking of War Babies ' to Seattle-based Hendricks &
The War Has Begun
Clinton's current effort to assert ownership of his creations began 14 years ago when he sued Bridgeport Music Inc., alleging that his signature had been forged on documents assigning the rights to more than 170 songs he wrote between 1976 and 1983 ' including some of his best-known compositions ' to the Southfield, MI'based publisher and its president, Armen Boladian. In 2001, a federal district court judge in Florida ruled against Clinton and awarded Bridgeport those rights. The company immediately moved to cash in on Clinton's popularity with a new generation of recording artists who had leaned heavily on snippets of his classics in making their own records.
Clinton got a measure of revenge four years later when he reclaimed ownership of the master recordings for the four albums at issue in his dispute with Hendricks &
Hendricks &
Hendricks &
By August 2008, though, court filings show the relationship between firm and client had soured, with Hendricks &
Clinton, meanwhile, launched a counterattack on the firm via a malpractice suit filed in federal court in Seattle in which he claimed that Hendricks &
In ruling that the firm could attempt to recoup the unpaid fees by taking ownership of ' or even selling off ' the copyrights on the four Clinton albums, U.S. District Judge Lasnik acknowledged the novelty of his decision. '[T]he court has not found any reported case authorizing the relief afforded herein,' he wrote. For that reason, he stayed his November 27 order for 30 days to allow Clinton time to appeal the ruling. (Judge Lasnik also granted Hendricks &
Clinton did file an appeal with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and briefs were due April 17.
Unusual Ruling
It doesn't surprise
Hendricks &
Tom Huddleston Jr. is a Staff Reporter for The Am Law Daily, an ALM affiliate of Entertainment Law & Finance.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.