8 ms·

Harry Shearer Files $125M 'Spinal Tap' Fraud Suit, Copyright Termination

38 points by 6stringmerc 10y ago

smhenderson 10y ago
I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created but in this case I think Harry has it right. He obviously is not just looking to cash in on previous revenue that, if he is correct, is owed to him; there are a couple of paragraphs at the end describing how Vivendi has done little to nothing to enforce the trademark on Spinal Tap except when the actual actors/players decided they would like to do something more with it. It seems to me that if the original creators want to go out and try something new with their work and the company managing the licensing of said work is doing nothing to contribute than they are indeed within their rights to seize it back. Copyright law is complicated and IANAL but my layman's reading of this is that Harry, and the rest of Spinal Tap, have a case.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  To my understanding, there is nothing more feared in the Hollywood and Record Industries than good accountants doing an audit. The shady business dealings are legendary. Sure, some turn out rich in the end, but very few and far between.
- lanaius 10y ago
  I don't get the sense that the rest of Spinal Tap is included, but I think if Derek Smalls wants to release a solo album called Smell the Glove Compartment, he should be able to.
- klenwell 10y ago
  Agreed. From article: The complaint filed Monday in California federal court is packed with enough nuggets to instantly make this a must-watch "Hollywood Accounting" case... Despite the film's legacy and Spinal Tap's enduring success as a commercial band able to sell out arenas, Shearer's company Century of Progress Productions alleges that the four lead creatives have received just $81 in merchandising income and $98 in musical sales income in the past three decades from the franchise. Those figures are pretty remarkable. Especially when they were supposed to get "40 percent of net receipts"! I suspect it is more the principal than the money for Shearer. I'm a devoted listener of his weekly Le Show radio show and the fact that he's been doing it the last 20+ years for little to no money, not to mention his public advocacy on behalf of professional musicians and New Orleans, supports this view. I consider Harry Shearer one of the greatest living satirists, a spiritual heir to Mark Twain. (If ever someone deserved the Mark Twain Award...) I'm just happy he's made enough money from his more popular commercial endeavors to continue to fund his more elevated interests. If he did get $125M, I expect he'd put it to good use.
  - AimHere 10y ago
    > Those figures are pretty remarkable. Especially when they were supposed to get "40 percent of net receipts"! The clue is in the word 'net'. Classic Hollywood accounting. If the owners make sure that Spinal Tap doesn't turn a profit, then they don't have to pay out anything. As long as their revenue is going some other direction (wages, say, or paid out to suppliers who do turn a profit), then they can still make money, while denying it to the suckers who put in work for points on the net receipts. If Hollywood calls, and you're offered a percentage of net takings, then the example above probably is a pretty good indicator of how much you can expect to receive - $170 split four-ways over 30 years on a modern day classic.
- deong 10y ago
  I don't have a problem with copyright holders getting paid long after the work. Unlike patents, where I do have a problem, copyright doesn't prevent independent discovery. If you write a song, I think it's fair that you have creative and monetary control over that song for a fairly long period of time (though far shorter than the current legal frameworks provide for). However, these type of common studio tricks look to my eye to have very little to do with copyright. They seem to be cases of just good old fashioned criminal and civil fraud. It's just that the fraud wouldn't work without copyright law behind the scenes.
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    I wrote a book about this above but in short, I agree, I should have been more clear about my problem with the absurd lengths copyright can be extended these days. "Decades" wasn't really specific enough to get my point across. Given ST was 1984 I'd say somewhere between 1998 - 2004 would be fair and within the boundaries our original copyright laws were meant to cover.
- paulcole 10y ago
  > I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created Can you explain why exactly? John August (screenwriter/blogger) wrote about this extensively and his argument (when it comes to the film industry) is very simple: Most writers (and by extension actors, etc.) aren't stars or even semi-famous. They get very few new projects produced and rely on residuals to provide income in between new projects. Without residuals, screenwriting would only be accessible to those who are already wealthy.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    I'm part of the "strip back protections" to a more reasonable frame of reference. His argument, to wit, is bullshit (if I'm reading correctly). Reasonable Copyright Reform is basically "Life of Artist + X years" where X is the variable. A single digit extension, say like 5 years, so family members can enjoy a last bit of revenue stream / protection of works, and then it goes back to the public benefit. Nobody other than Copyright Abolitionists assert that Copyright should expire while the creator is still alive - I mean, I guess somebody could assert it but it's so far out as a non-sequitur it's laughable. If I misread his argument or your summary then I still think there are significant problems with that line of reasoning in a serious Copyright Reform discussion.
    - smhenderson 10y ago
      Bullshit? OK, thanks for explaining why you think my argument is bullshit, even if I think that language is unnecessary. But I do disagree. If I write a hit song and die before the copyright ends than sure, let my family have a cut. But even five years after the term of it ending is too long in my mind. And, no, I also don't think it's fair that someone reap the benefits of a work for their entire life (assuming they live a long life). People have to work for a living. If you only come up with one hit song in your life that makes any money I believe you'll need to suck it up and find something else to do for a living. And to be clear, I love music, I play music and I have spent many, many thousands of dollars on music in my life. I have no problem with people getting paid, just not riding it out forever. Especially when the industry is set up to give most of the benefits of long term copyright to the industry, not the artists.
- tzs 10y ago
  > I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created [...] Why not? It seems to me to be the most sensible way to pay people for creative works, if we assume that people who create more economically valuable works should get paid more for those works than do people who create less valuable works. With many kinds of artistic works the value of the work cannot be determined until long after the work is created, and so it is very hard to determine what a fair up front one-time payment should be. An ongoing royalty based on the use of the work addresses that.
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    I'm not am artist and have only created software for hire so I guess my opinion is just that - opinion. And probably not worth as much as someone in the industry. But here goes... I believe the original copyright term put into our constitution is reasonable. Fourteen years should be enough for an artist to publish, promote and reap the benefits before a work is released to the world for others to build on and enjoy. And with the way things move so quickly these days fourteen years seems more reasonable than ever. But I've heard arguments for varying copyright terms for different types of works, e.g. software, which changes very rapidly, only getting seven to ten years, movies, which ideally stand the test of time getting longer than fourteen years and music falling somewhere in the middle. I'm open to persuasion on the topic I guess. But when I said "decades" in my OP I meant just that. I really don't see it as justifiable that people get continuously paid for something twenty, thirty, seventy-five years later. I also don't believe copyright older than fourteen years should be inherited. I see nothing that society gains when the children and grand children of an artist not only get paid long after a work was created but in a lot of cases actively cause copyright to be extended over and over to the detriment of society. Not to mention the nasty disputes that arise between heirs that do nothing by end up tarnishing the original artist's good name and deeds. (E.g. Frank Zappa [1]) Finally, let's face it, this Spinal Tap story is not unique. Artists may get small residuals for things that are older than I'm comfortable with but that's a much lesser concern for me than companies reaping the rewards for things that have outlived the creators by decades. Extreme examples being Mickey Mouse and Happy Birthday. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-name-just-ask-frank-zappas-feuding-heirs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-...
CPLX 10y ago
For what it's worth Harry Shearer has a pretty fearsome reputation in the business for being a hardass, about a year ago or so he ended up in a heated public dispute re his contract with the Simpsons, and he's had some pretty high profile feuds with collaborators over the years. Just an interesting footnote, I'm not sure that should do anything to diminish his side in this dispute, which seems like a pretty reasonable one.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Apparently society makes progress one angry hardass at a time. When people like this on the side of justice and progress what they accomplish can be incredible. I think we've overly taught to minimize conflict and let things like petty office politics and passive agressive attitudes rule. Its nice to see someone go full tilt against something. Even guys I disagree with like Thiel certainly have the types of skills that get results.
spiritomb 10y ago
do anyone feel rock n roll music keeps you 'child'? i.e. keeps you in a state of arrested development?
- smhenderson 10y ago
  Arrested? No. Makes me feel like a child _sometimes_? Absolutely, that's probably why I listed to it as often as I do.

38 points by 6stringmerc 10y ago

I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created but in this case I think Harry has it right. He obviously is not just looking to cash in on previous revenue that, if he is correct, is owed to him; there are a couple of paragraphs at the end describing how Vivendi has done little to nothing to enforce the trademark on Spinal Tap except when the actual actors/players decided they would like to do something more with it. It seems to me that if the original creators want to go out and try something new with their work and the company managing the licensing of said work is doing nothing to contribute than they are indeed within their rights to seize it back. Copyright law is complicated and IANAL but my layman's reading of this is that Harry, and the rest of Spinal Tap, have a case.

6stringmerc 10y ago
To my understanding, there is nothing more feared in the Hollywood and Record Industries than good accountants doing an audit. The shady business dealings are legendary. Sure, some turn out rich in the end, but very few and far between.
lanaius 10y ago
I don't get the sense that the rest of Spinal Tap is included, but I think if Derek Smalls wants to release a solo album called Smell the Glove Compartment, he should be able to.
klenwell 10y ago
Agreed. From article: The complaint filed Monday in California federal court is packed with enough nuggets to instantly make this a must-watch "Hollywood Accounting" case... Despite the film's legacy and Spinal Tap's enduring success as a commercial band able to sell out arenas, Shearer's company Century of Progress Productions alleges that the four lead creatives have received just $81 in merchandising income and $98 in musical sales income in the past three decades from the franchise. Those figures are pretty remarkable. Especially when they were supposed to get "40 percent of net receipts"! I suspect it is more the principal than the money for Shearer. I'm a devoted listener of his weekly Le Show radio show and the fact that he's been doing it the last 20+ years for little to no money, not to mention his public advocacy on behalf of professional musicians and New Orleans, supports this view. I consider Harry Shearer one of the greatest living satirists, a spiritual heir to Mark Twain. (If ever someone deserved the Mark Twain Award...) I'm just happy he's made enough money from his more popular commercial endeavors to continue to fund his more elevated interests. If he did get $125M, I expect he'd put it to good use.
- AimHere 10y ago
  > Those figures are pretty remarkable. Especially when they were supposed to get "40 percent of net receipts"! The clue is in the word 'net'. Classic Hollywood accounting. If the owners make sure that Spinal Tap doesn't turn a profit, then they don't have to pay out anything. As long as their revenue is going some other direction (wages, say, or paid out to suppliers who do turn a profit), then they can still make money, while denying it to the suckers who put in work for points on the net receipts. If Hollywood calls, and you're offered a percentage of net takings, then the example above probably is a pretty good indicator of how much you can expect to receive - $170 split four-ways over 30 years on a modern day classic.
deong 10y ago
I don't have a problem with copyright holders getting paid long after the work. Unlike patents, where I do have a problem, copyright doesn't prevent independent discovery. If you write a song, I think it's fair that you have creative and monetary control over that song for a fairly long period of time (though far shorter than the current legal frameworks provide for). However, these type of common studio tricks look to my eye to have very little to do with copyright. They seem to be cases of just good old fashioned criminal and civil fraud. It's just that the fraud wouldn't work without copyright law behind the scenes.
- smhenderson 10y ago
  I wrote a book about this above but in short, I agree, I should have been more clear about my problem with the absurd lengths copyright can be extended these days. "Decades" wasn't really specific enough to get my point across. Given ST was 1984 I'd say somewhere between 1998 - 2004 would be fair and within the boundaries our original copyright laws were meant to cover.
paulcole 10y ago
> I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created Can you explain why exactly? John August (screenwriter/blogger) wrote about this extensively and his argument (when it comes to the film industry) is very simple: Most writers (and by extension actors, etc.) aren't stars or even semi-famous. They get very few new projects produced and rely on residuals to provide income in between new projects. Without residuals, screenwriting would only be accessible to those who are already wealthy.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  I'm part of the "strip back protections" to a more reasonable frame of reference. His argument, to wit, is bullshit (if I'm reading correctly). Reasonable Copyright Reform is basically "Life of Artist + X years" where X is the variable. A single digit extension, say like 5 years, so family members can enjoy a last bit of revenue stream / protection of works, and then it goes back to the public benefit. Nobody other than Copyright Abolitionists assert that Copyright should expire while the creator is still alive - I mean, I guess somebody could assert it but it's so far out as a non-sequitur it's laughable. If I misread his argument or your summary then I still think there are significant problems with that line of reasoning in a serious Copyright Reform discussion.
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    Bullshit? OK, thanks for explaining why you think my argument is bullshit, even if I think that language is unnecessary. But I do disagree. If I write a hit song and die before the copyright ends than sure, let my family have a cut. But even five years after the term of it ending is too long in my mind. And, no, I also don't think it's fair that someone reap the benefits of a work for their entire life (assuming they live a long life). People have to work for a living. If you only come up with one hit song in your life that makes any money I believe you'll need to suck it up and find something else to do for a living. And to be clear, I love music, I play music and I have spent many, many thousands of dollars on music in my life. I have no problem with people getting paid, just not riding it out forever. Especially when the industry is set up to give most of the benefits of long term copyright to the industry, not the artists.
tzs 10y ago
> I'm not a fan of people getting paid for copyrighted works decades after the work was created [...] Why not? It seems to me to be the most sensible way to pay people for creative works, if we assume that people who create more economically valuable works should get paid more for those works than do people who create less valuable works. With many kinds of artistic works the value of the work cannot be determined until long after the work is created, and so it is very hard to determine what a fair up front one-time payment should be. An ongoing royalty based on the use of the work addresses that.
- smhenderson 10y ago
  I'm not am artist and have only created software for hire so I guess my opinion is just that - opinion. And probably not worth as much as someone in the industry. But here goes... I believe the original copyright term put into our constitution is reasonable. Fourteen years should be enough for an artist to publish, promote and reap the benefits before a work is released to the world for others to build on and enjoy. And with the way things move so quickly these days fourteen years seems more reasonable than ever. But I've heard arguments for varying copyright terms for different types of works, e.g. software, which changes very rapidly, only getting seven to ten years, movies, which ideally stand the test of time getting longer than fourteen years and music falling somewhere in the middle. I'm open to persuasion on the topic I guess. But when I said "decades" in my OP I meant just that. I really don't see it as justifiable that people get continuously paid for something twenty, thirty, seventy-five years later. I also don't believe copyright older than fourteen years should be inherited. I see nothing that society gains when the children and grand children of an artist not only get paid long after a work was created but in a lot of cases actively cause copyright to be extended over and over to the detriment of society. Not to mention the nasty disputes that arise between heirs that do nothing by end up tarnishing the original artist's good name and deeds. (E.g. Frank Zappa [1]) Finally, let's face it, this Spinal Tap story is not unique. Artists may get small residuals for things that are older than I'm comfortable with but that's a much lesser concern for me than companies reaping the rewards for things that have outlived the creators by decades. Extreme examples being Mickey Mouse and Happy Birthday. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-name-just-ask-frank-zappas-feuding-heirs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/business/media/whats-in-a-...

CPLX 10y ago

For what it's worth Harry Shearer has a pretty fearsome reputation in the business for being a hardass, about a year ago or so he ended up in a heated public dispute re his contract with the Simpsons, and he's had some pretty high profile feuds with collaborators over the years. Just an interesting footnote, I'm not sure that should do anything to diminish his side in this dispute, which seems like a pretty reasonable one.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Apparently society makes progress one angry hardass at a time. When people like this on the side of justice and progress what they accomplish can be incredible. I think we've overly taught to minimize conflict and let things like petty office politics and passive agressive attitudes rule. Its nice to see someone go full tilt against something. Even guys I disagree with like Thiel certainly have the types of skills that get results.

spiritomb 10y ago

do anyone feel rock n roll music keeps you 'child'? i.e. keeps you in a state of arrested development?

smhenderson 10y ago
Arrested? No. Makes me feel like a child _sometimes_? Absolutely, that's probably why I listed to it as often as I do.