Legal

A contentious lawsuit over Jimi Hendrix’s music is going to trial, after a London judge ruled that the heirs of his former bandmates could continue to sue Sony Music over the rights to three classic albums.
The estates of bassist Noel Redding and drummer Mitch Mitchell say they own a share of the rights to three albums created by the trio’s Jimi Hendrix Experience, and they’ve been battling in court for more than two years to prove it.

Sony had argued that the case should be dismissed because Redding and Mitchell both signed away their rights in the early 1970s shortly after Hendrix died, but a judge on London’s High Court ruled Monday that the dispute – over “arguably the greatest rock guitarist ever” — must be decided at trial.

“My overall conclusion is that the claims in respect of copyright and performers’ property rights survive and should go to trial,” Justice Michael Green wrote in his ruling, obtained by Billboard. The judge wrote that Redding and Mitchell’s heirs had “a real prospect of succeeding” on their argument that the decades-old releases “do not provide a complete defence” for Sony.

It’s unclear when the trial will take place. A rep for Sony did not immediately return a request for comment on the court’s decision. An attorney for the Hendrix estate, which is not formally a party to the U.K. case, did not immediately return a request for comment.

In a statement to Billboard, Redding and Mitchell’s attorneys said the ruling would mean “we can hopefully obtain some justice for the families” of the two musicians. “No one is denying that Jimi Hendrix was one of, if not, the greatest guitarist of all time. But he didn’t make his recordings alone, and they could not have achieved any success without the contributions of Noel and Mitch.”

Hendrix teamed up with Redding and Mitchell in 1966 to form the Experience, and the trio went on to release a number of now-iconic songs before Hendrix’s death, including “All Along The Watchtower,” which spent nine weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1968 and peaked at No. 20.

The current fight kicked off in 2021, when Redding and Mitchell’s heirs sent a letter in the U.K. claiming they own a stake in Hendrix’s music and arguing that they’re owed millions in royalties. Hendrix’s own estate and Sony responded a month later by preemptively suing in New York federal court, aiming to prove they were in sole control of the music. Redding and Mitchell’s heirs then filed their own case against Sony in British court.

The transatlantic dispute centers on agreements that Redding and Mitchell signed in New York in 1973 to resolve litigation after Hendrix died suddenly at the age of 27. In the settlement, the two men agreed not to sue Jimi’s estate and any record companies distributing his music in return for one-time payments — $100,000 paid to Redding and $247,500 to Mitchell.

Sony and the Hendrix estate have argued in court filings that those “broad releases” prohibit Redding and Mitchell’s heirs from making any legal claim to the band’s music. The heirs, on the other hand, say the two men died in poverty and that they’re legally entitled under U.K. law to a cut of the lucrative Hendrix Experience music they helped create.

On Monday, Justice Green did not rule on that core dispute, saying he “cannot decide those contentious issues” about the power of the release agreements signed by Redding and Mitchell. Instead, he ruled simply that there are “sustainable arguments on such issues that will have to be decided at a trial.”

In statement, a rep for the Redding and Mitchell estates said they looked forward to the trial. “Noel and Mitch died in penury despite being two thirds of the Jimi Hendrix Experience and owning the copyright in the recordings jointly with Jimi,” Edward Adams said. “We see our case as carrying a torch for Noel, in particular, who spent over three decades seeking justice.”

The trial will come after years of jockeying over whether the dispute should be heard first in American or British courts. In May, a U.S. federal judge ruled that the English litigation could take precedence, citing the fact that it had kicked off nearly a month earlier than the American case, and that a British appeals court had already ruled that their case could move forward. The U.S. case, filed in Manhattan federal court, is currently paused.

There’s a new front in the long legal war between the family members of late Ramones founders Joey and Johnny Ramone, this time over a planned Netflix movie starring Pete Davidson centered on the pioneering punk band.
In a lawsuit filed Saturday (Jan. 21) in Manhattan court, Johnny’s widow, Linda Ramone, claims that Joey’s brother, Mickey Leigh (Mitchel Hyman) “covertly developed an unapproved and unauthorized Ramones-based biopic” based on his own “one-sided recitation of the history of the Ramones.”

Though the lawsuit doesn’t identify Netflix by name, it says that the disputed movie will be based on Leigh’s memoir, I Slept with Joey Ramone. Netflix’s planned movie, announced in 2021, has the same name; is based on the same book; and is being developed with the “support of the Estate of Joey Ramone.”

Since Linda and Leigh split ownership of the intellectual property for the band — widely regarded as pioneers of punk rock and one of the most influential rock bands of all time — Linda says a movie that will focus heavily on the Ramones as a group cannot go forward without her say-so. 

“Ms. Ramone objects to defendants’ attempt to create a Ramones film without her involvement — not to be obstinate, but rather based on defendants’ disregard for [Ramones] assets and their conduct and treatment of Ms. Ramone and her late husband,” Linda’s attorneys write. “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”

Though the planned movie is one major point of dispute, Linda’s lawsuit also includes a raft of other allegations against Leigh and David Frey, a director of the Ramones’ holding company appointed to his role by Leigh. She says the pair have “effectively shut down the entire company,” unfairly withheld payments to her, and otherwise thrown the company’s operations into chaos.

“It is apparent from defendants’ continuing course of conduct that their main objective is to torment Ms. Ramone until she agrees to sell her interests,” Linda’s lawyers write. “Regrettably, Defendants appear willing to allow the band’s legacy to decay, in order to benefit their own self-interest.”

“They Weren’t Friendly”

Joey (real name Jeffrey Ross Hyman), who served as the band’s lead vocalist from their founding in 1974, died of cancer in 2001. Johnny (real name John William Cummings), the band’s guitarist, died in 2004, also of cancer.

The two punk rockers, who were not actually related, had a notoriously unbrotherly relationship — a rift rooted partly in their differing personalities and political views, but also in the fact that Linda dated Joey before eventually marrying Johnny. The two nonetheless formed a lucrative business partnership, touring heavily for decades until the band finally broke up for good in 1996. But in a 2016 interview with the New York Post, Leigh put it bluntly: “They weren’t friendly.”

In the years since the two bandmates passed away, that feud has seemingly continued between Leigh and Linda.

As the executors of Johnny and Joey’s respective estates, Linda and Leigh each own half of Ramones Productions Inc., an entity that has been described in court filings as “the vehicle through which the iconic punk rock musical group … markets, merchandizes, licenses and produces its memorabilia and musical related products.”

In 2018, Leigh filed a legal action against Linda via private arbitration, alleging that she was improperly using the band’s intellectual property and unfairly associating herself with the “Ramones” name with projects like a “Ramones Ranch” in Los Angeles, violating the agreement that governs how Ramones Productions is run.

In a decision that was later made public in court, an arbitrator partly sided with Leigh, restricting how Linda could use “The Ramones” name, and even requiring her to go by “Linda Cummings-Ramone” in certain situations. But the arbitrator roundly criticized both sides for their ongoing feuding, reminding them that they had an “almost sacred mission to be the caretakers for the band’s creative work.”

“Instead, the parties have allowed their personal egos and their animus for one another to interfere with their joint obligations by failing to communicate, obfuscating information and unreasonably withholding their approvals,” the arbitrator wrote in May 2019.

The admonishment did little good. Last year, the pair headed back to litigation, this time after Linda initiated arbitration proceedings that aimed to remove someone from the board of directors of Ramones Productions. Leigh filed a court case to halt the arbitration, arguing that it was an improper use of that process. That case remains pending.

“A Universal Story of Family”

The latest legal scuffle appears to have been triggered in part by the plans for a movie version of I Slept With Joey Ramone — Leigh’s 2009 memoir billed as “an enduring portrait of a man who struggled to find his voice and of the brother who loved him.” Netflix announced the film in April 2021, with Davidson set to co-write and star as Joey, and Jason Orley (Big Time Adolescence, I Want You Back) signed on to direct. 

“’I Slept with Joey Ramone’ is a great rock anthem that will make an equally great rock biopic, set apart by a universal story of family,” Adam Fogelson, chairman of the company spearheading the film, said in Netflix’s press release announcing the project.

Netflix said that the movie, which remains in early-stage “development” in 2024, would be produced with “the cooperation and support of the Estate of Joey Ramone.” But in her new lawsuit this week, Linda says that such a project needs the sign-off of Ramones Productions, not just Joey’s estate.

“As 50% shareholder of RPI, Ms. Ramone would never have consented to defendants’ unilateral development of a Ramones biopic,” her lawyers wrote. “Nor would she (then or at any point in the future) agree to permit the inclusion of any RPI intellectual property or recordings in such a film project.”

According to Linda’s attorneys, Leigh and Frey have told others that they plan to “circumvent” any objections she has to the movie, including by potentially re-recording Ramones songs that could be used in the film. And once they do so, she says they will unfairly get to tell the “authoritative story” of the iconic band.

“There will likely not be an appetite for a subsequent Ramones film, thus destroying the single most lucrative and substantial corporate opportunity of the company and usurping it as defendants’ own,” Linda wrote.

Netflix is not named in the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing. The company did not return a request for comment on the new lawsuit.

Life Rights? Or Free Speech Rights?

Legally speaking, whether a movie producer would need one band member to sign off on a movie about one of his famous bandmates is a tricky question. Would John Lennon’s estate need to sign off on a Paul McCartney movie? Could Dave Grohl stop a Kurt Cobain biopic?

While many risk-averse filmmakers and studios secure “life rights” before they make such movies — essentially a guarantee that the production will not be hamstrung by litigation over likeness rights or defamation allegations — they’re not strictly necessary. The First Amendment largely protects the right to make movies based on real historical figures, whether they want their story told or not.

“Life rights are an agreement for access and a promise not to sue, but there’s no intellectual property attached to our life story itself,” says Lisa Callif, an attorney at the firm Donaldson Callif Perez who specializes in rights clearance for films and TV. “We all have a First Amendment right to tell a story. A story about a band is just comprised of facts, even if they’re really interesting facts.”

But in practical terms, a movie about a famous band raises a unique problem: It effectively needs to use that band’s copyrighted music. Can you imagine watching Walk The Line without hearing Johnny Cash songs, or Straight Outta Compton without any N.W.A tracks? In the context of a musical biopic, that gives someone like Linda, with her veto power over the band’s music, more leverage to demand involvement.

“It gets stickier with rights to music,” Callif said. “Even if you can tell the story, you’re not going to be able to license any of the music.”

The other layer to the current dispute is contractual. Linda’s lawsuit points to a legal settlement from 2009 in which both she and Leigh allegedly agreed that any “separate or individual projects” involving Ramones intellectual property would “require the prior written approval” of the company and its owners. Even if a studio has the right to tell any historical story it wants, a party to a contract could be barred from signing certain deals.

“Intransigence and Harmful Actions”

Beyond the dispute over the film, Linda’s new lawsuit includes a slew of other accusations about Leigh, echoing the strongly worded tone of their previous legal battles.

Linda says Leigh and Frey have “refused to engage with the Ramones’ record label, its social media creative agency, its merchandising partners, or its long-term business managers”; that they “regularly create internecine disputes and unnecessary work that drains the company of funds”; that they have “prevented the company from conducting basic operational tasks”; and have “baselessly and in bad faith” withheld dividend payments from her, “effectively holding Ms. Ramone’s money hostage” unless she agrees with their initiatives.

“After exhausting every resource at her disposal to try to right the ship … Linda Ramone reluctantly brings this action as a last resort,” Linda’s lawyers write. “Simply put, RPI, as currently constituted, is not working due to the intransigence and harmful actions undertaken by [Frey and Leigh].”

Ultimately, Linda claims that the only possible solution to the years-long dispute is to remove Frey from the company and appoint a court-order receiver to take charge of it: “Mr. Frey’s continued involvement and obfuscation remains a significant hurdle toward resolving even the most straightforward of operational issues.”

In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Frey and Leigh of breaching their fiduciary duty to the company and of unjust enrichment. It demands that the court order Frey’s removal as director of the company, and requests the appointment of a receiver.

An attorney for Leigh declined to comment on the lawsuit’s allegations. An attorney for Frey did not immediately return requests for comment.

“Ramones Fans Want A Ramones Movie”

In some ways, the current dispute over the Joey biopic was predicted by that 2019 arbitration ruling which detailed the long struggle between Linda and Leigh.

In it, the arbitrator went to great lengths to plead with Linda and Leigh to put aside their differences. He warned them that their “time-consuming and costly” legal battles had caused the Ramones brand to experience “tepid growth.”

“Mickey Hyman and Linda Cummings-Ramone have been entrusted with the exceedingly important mission of preserving the legacy of the Ramones for its existing followers, and to grow this iconic brand to a new world-wide group of music fans,” the arbitrator wrote at the time “The  only way those goals can be accomplished, in my estimation, is for there to be some radical  changes made by Mickey, Linda, and their representatives.”

If those changes could be made, the arbitrator identified one key area for future growth: A movie. He cited the then-recent success of the movie Bohemian Rhapsody, which he said had boosted Queen to “its highest chart position in 38 years” and “demonstrates the power that a biopic can have on improving the stature of a rock band.” That movie eventually earned more than $900 million.

“In my estimation, Ramones fans want a Ramones movie,” the arbitrator wrote at the time. “To make that happen, each side will need to put on hold their individual desires to make a Mickey movie or a Linda movie and join together to authorize a great biopic to be made about this historically important band.”

David Kenner, the attorney who unsuccessfully represented Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel in his criminal trial case year, will plead guilty to a criminal contempt charge over allegations that he leaked grand jury materials to reporters ahead of the trial, prosecutors say.
In a court filing Thursday, prosecutors told a federal judge that Kenner had “agreed to accept responsibility for violating the court’s protective order” and plead guilty to a misdemeanor over the incident, in which he allegedly leaked “swathes of sensitive internal government records” to reporters.

It’s unclear what kind of repercussions Kenner will face under the plea deal. His attorney did not immediately return a request for comment. A hearing is set for Friday for Kenner to enter his plea.

Kenner’s planned plea comes as he is already facing accusations that he botched Michel’s April trial, in which the rapper was convicted of violating federal foreign lobbying laws. Michel’s new lawyers say Kenner “utterly failed” his client — including by using experimental A.I. tools to work the case — and are seeking a new trial on the grounds that he deprived Michel of an adequate defense.

Michel, a founding member of the influential hip-hop group Fugees, was charged in 2019 with funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He was also accused of trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.

In April, following a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Michel was convicted on 10 counts including conspiracy, witness tampering and failing to register as an agent of China. Throughout the trial, Michel was represented by Kenner, a well-known Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who has previously worked for hip-hop luminaries like Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight and, most recently, Tory Lanez.

Weeks before the trial even began, federal prosecutors accused Kenner of committing a “blatant violation” of court orders by leaking sealed documents, including materials from a grand jury, to reporters for the financial outlet Bloomberg in an effort to engineer “defense-oriented articles” on Michel’s case ahead of the trial.

“In a show of gamesmanship seeking to influence public opinion and bias potential jurors in favor of defendant, the defense has disclosed for publication swaths of sensitive internal government records,” prosecutors wrote at the time. “The disclosure may result in harassment or intimidation of government witnesses – in a case in which witness tampering is among the charges.”

According to prosecutors, the two Bloomberg articles (read them here and here) that came from Kenner’s leaks not only included sensitive sealed information, but told the story “largely from Michel’s perspective” and incorporated “defense themes of innocent alternative explanations.” They called Kenner’s conduct an effort to “influence the jury pool” by selectively disclosing facts about the case. Bloomberg and its reporters were not accused of any wrongdoing.

After Michel split with Kenner, his new lawyers raised those leaking accusations as another sign of Kenner’s missteps during the case. They said the charges against Kenner himself created a conflict of interest and a distraction as he was trying to defend his client during the trial.

“Kenner’s conflict of interest—owing to his significant stress and distraction from the contempt charges, and his incentive to curry favor with the prosecution and pursue an unaggressive defense—adversely affected his performance at trial,” Michel’s new lawyers wrote back in October.

Kenner has denied the accusations, and prosecutors have argued that his conduct during the trial was not enough to require an entirely new trial. A hearing on the issue was held earlier this month, and a judge will soon rule on Michel’s motion to overturn the verdict.

In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, Erica Dumas, a spokeswoman for Pras, cited Kenner’s guilty plea as yet another example of his ex-attorney’s shortcomings: “Unfortunately, former attorney David Kenner failed at every turn to competently represent Pras over the course of this lengthy legal battle.”

A man charged with stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan home was arrested for a third time Wednesday shortly after he was released from police custody, meaning he’s facing new felony charges that could keep him behind bars for years.

Explore

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

David Crowe, 31, had already been arrested on Saturday and Monday outside Swift’s TriBeCa apartment building and charged with misdemeanor stalking and harassment. But after he was released following an arraignment hearing on Wednesday, he apparently bee-lined back to the same location.

Police say they responded to a 911 call around 2:30 pm about a disorderly male in the area of Swift’s apartment. Though Crowe was gone when they arrived, police say he later turned himself in and was arrested for violating the strict protection order imposed on him as a condition of his release.

In addition to the original charges, Crowe is now facing four counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, a spokesman for the New York Police Department confirmed to Billboard – a felony that can result in as much as a five-year prison sentence. It’s unclear if the new counts are bail-eligible under New York state law, which would make it harder for Crowe to seek another quick release.

Crowe could be arraigned in Manhattan court on Thursday or Friday on the new charges. Manhattan prosecutors declined to comment on Crowe’s latest arrest.

The Seattle native was first arrested on Saturday afternoon, police say, after they responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant.

Then on Monday evening, witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” near the same location, police say; officers then spotted Crowe “harassing multiple complainants” and he was taken into custody.

Following that arrest, Crowe was charged with one count of stalking in the fourth degree, one count of harassment in the first degree, and one count of harassment in the second degree.

In charging documents, prosecutors say that a security guard for an unnamed individual — presumed to be Swift — reported that Crowe has been spotted near Swift’s apartment roughly 30 times since late November and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the same unnamed individual. The security guard reported that he had “asked the defendant not to approach the building or to leave the immediate area surrounding the building” on 10 separate occasions.

If convicted of those original charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe faces up to three months in prison for both the stalking count and the first-degree harassment count. If convicted on the second-degree, Crowe faces up to a year in prison.