James and D’Arcy sue Virgin Records over 2005 deal with Billy
July 25th, 2008 by jjbtags: legal, d'arcy wretzky, record labels, james iha, billy corgan, news
Time Warner’s TMZ.com has the filing (quite readable 9-page .pdf), and they summarize the suit thusly:
James Yoshinobu Iha and D’Arcy 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 argues that the 2005 negotiation violated the terms of a May 11, 1998 contract between Virgin Records and the Smashing Pumpkins.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:07 am
heh… whoops!
July 25th, 2008 at 6:32 am
This has the potential to get reeeeally ugly, but at least it may put the “it’s not the Pumpkins without the 4 original members” crowd to rest.
“event Lieutenants”
July 25th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I don’t understand, are they upset because they made money?
scale readings
July 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I don’t think this suit is about money as much as it is ‘we are the Smashing Pumpkins’.
Erasmus men
July 25th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Hmm. What I’m curious about is whether Jimmy got any piece of the pie, given that he wouldn’t have been around to sign the ‘98 contract.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Don’t you love that the first thing that Pitch fork reports on the pumkins in a long time is this law suit?
July 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Did anybody notice how the document referenced William Patrick Corgan, who happens to be Billy’s father?
July 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
uhhh, Kirk? William is the long version of Billy.
I just find it really funny that they are going after royalties. How many credits does James have for songwriting through the entirety of SP’s studio catalog? 7? 8? (this includes b-sides). D’arcy didn’t write anything……..how much money would they gain from the royalties part of the law suit?
With breach of contract they may have a case.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Well, it depends on the terms of the contract signed in ‘98, but James and D’arcy probably do have a right to some mechanical royalties on the recording-artist side of things.
These are a pittance to songwriting royalties, to be sure. And depending on the contract that was signed, Billy, as owner of the song, could do what he likes with it (though it sounds like James/D’arcy may have had refusal rights based on the filing), but either way, they would be owed a small share of each download/ringtone sold.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I’m not doubting the money received from mechanicals as much as I am the worth of it in the big picture. I.E. How much would they possibly get given the fact that they want a jury trial….they’re going to have legal bills that could be pretty extensive and basically cancel out any monetary victory.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
p.s. I think we got the terminology wrong, “performance royalties” and not mechanical.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Hey, just found this little nugget about royalties and digital distribution. Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes this thing a bit more complicated because royalty pie is divided differently:
“Under the Act, the compulsory royalty (the royalty schedule follows) was to be shared in the manner: 50% to the record companies, 45% to featured artists, 2½ % to non-featured musicians through AFM (American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada [27] and 2½% for non-featured vocalists through AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists [28]. ”
what is the definition of a “featured artist” in this case? What is a “non-featured musician”? It’s a well known fact that Iha and D’arcy were non-entities in the recording process in many cases….does that make them “non-featured musicians”? However, in every single liner note it’s “The Smashing Pumpkins are Billy, Jimmy, James and D’arcy.”
July 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Just as a side note, I love Pitchfork’s little connection between “G.L.O.W.” and the lawsuit…….
“Hey, maybe it’s a coded message to Iha and D’Arcy? Good Luck On Welfare??”
July 25th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Cherub Angel, Billy happens to be William Patrick Corgan Jr. Without the Jr., i believe it would be referencing his father. No big deal though, everybody knows who they are referring to.
And I don’t think that the issue of who recorded what on which songs is really the issue, any new change of contract was supposed to have been approved by James and D’Arcy (it even said that the new contract had lines for three signatures, but only Billy signed). The band probably had to come to a consensus with Virgin over who would be considered a “feature artist.” My guess would be that even if Billy recorded most of the parts in many songs, James and D’Arcy would have still been considered “featured artists” because they were supposedly a band, not a solo project.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
It sounds as if this suit is directed towards Virgin more than towards Billy, so this may not necessarily lead to anymore animosity between the 2 sides - at least this situation may get them all talking again. Despite all the rumors that have circulated throughout the years, even those started by BC, noone knows for sure who did what in the studio unless they were there. Again I think this lawsuit is less about money than it is about James and D’arcy saying ‘we are ‘featured artists’, legally we are in the band, we are the Smashing Pumpkins’.
War disaster
July 25th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
oh come on, why would they spend all of that time, effort and potentially spend a lot of money for legal representation on the jury trial? Those two do not have an unlimited income. You don’t pull out a lawsuit like this to say “we’re in the band, man….but now really, so how about the royalties? The contract is a conduit to the digital distribution issues. The “emerging technology” clause and invoking the contract itself ties directly to the royalty/ “featured artists” argument.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
It doesn’t matter what was actually done in studio, but what was agreed to in that contract from ‘98, because that could have reassigned rights for earlier songs too. The band had all the leverage in the world at that point, so I’m sure James and D’arcy had full say as well. I don’t know if it would lead to less animosity though…though he’s not liable, I’m sure Billy knew the stipulations of the previous contract and negotiated on his own. As kirk said, if there were three lines, that’s pretty clear cut.
The money is not worth it, but there is no way this goes to jury trial. They’ll take a settlement and case closed.
And Cherub, actually, performance royalties are for the actual performance or broadcast of a song. Mechanical relates to a reproduction of the song onto a format (i.e, ringtone, digital download).
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties4.htm
The royalty rate for a songwriter/publisher and a recording artist are two seperate mechanical royalties that are calculated differently, but they’re both mechanical.
JMG, yeah, I’m not sure how the DCMA fits in, but that’s exactly why this is cropping up. Their rights may be different under that, but the DCMA is pretty flawed as it is too…
July 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
point is, you don’t invoke a royalty issue if it’s not about the money. With royalties it’s ALL about the money.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Well it’s already been stated that the money is not worth it - so what are the other reasons to do this? Reaffirming their status as ‘the band’ at the time of the 98 contract.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:30 am
That’s just silly. You wouldn’t spend X amount of money on reaffirming your status in a band you are no longer in.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I’ve gotta agree with JMG. Things have already moved on. There has been a world tour and new album already and those two said and did nothing to indicate that they gave a damn about their status in the band.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:36 am
It seems silly they would spend x amount of money just to break even or to receive a nominal settlement.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I believe in the document there was a paragraph that stated that if James and D’Arcy won, Virgin would have to reimburse their legal fees, so I don’t know how much of a factor the fees are in their motives for the lawsuit.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
If the feels weren’t a factor then I could understand why…..but how much could Virgin owe over the past few years? 45% for “featured artists”…….there are 4 “featured artists” in this band, each would receive about 11.25% (under the DCMA). How much money per year do you think we’re talking?
I do wonder though….if Virgin doesn’t settle, if they go to trial….how will they fight this? Personally I think they would do the “featured” vs. “non-featured” artist scenario that JMG mentioned. They would argue about who did what. Hope info comes out about this case as it happens….interesting shit.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
The money may be nominal, but we’re discussing this in terms of millions of dollars too.
If I was owed $40,000, and had a pretty airtight case to pick that up, I’d certainly go through the hassle of sueing for that. We’re still talking a nice paycheck here.
Even if the money isn’t much, it’s not as much about “claiming a place” in the band. Rather, it’s to assert their right to future decisions on the back catalog, or to earn a settlement payment to give up their rights to the material.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
[…] news follows on the heels of former members James Iha and D’arcy Wretzky’s lawsuit against Virgin Recrods regarding royalties and breach of […]