Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Band Name Rights at Center of Battle Between Founding Isley Brothers
Fundamental issues in rights in band names are how those rights are determined among group members — including leaving members — between different bands, in concept groups and as to third parties, including personal managers and record labels. A current dispute over a band name that's worth tracking is one between two founding members of "The Isley Brothers," the legendary r&b group, that focuses on what happens to ownership of the band name rights when one member stops performing with the group but continues to be involved in its business affairs.
O'Kelly, Ronald and Rudolph Isley formed the Isley music group in 1954. According to Rudolph, the three siblings "intended to operate and did operate the Group as a common-law partnership" by contributing equal amounts of capital, equally incurring expenses, and sharing control and profits. For a time, younger Isley brothers Ernie and Marvin along with their brother-in law Chris Jasper later performed with the group but without "ownership, direction, or control rights." O'Kelly died intestate in 1986, leaving Ronald and Rudolph each with a 50% percent ownership interest in the group. Several years later, Rudolph stepped aside from performing but remained involved in the band's business ventures.
Then in 2022, Ronald obtained for himself a federal trademark registration of the band name. Rudolph, meanwhile, maintained he still had a 50% share of The Isley Brothers. An attorney for Ronald responded: "Ronald has no problem jointly deciding and incorporating Rudolph in Isley Brothers business. However, it would be only for the years that Rudolph was a working member of the Isley Brother's group."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.