Jamerson's widow sues La Bella

[svtb15]

yeah but, The news article says "at least $25,000" which is the bottom number.. it could go higher... and up to depending on the case and if the lawyer has a good gift of gab... if hes as good as a Johnny Cochrane..
Labella will be washing mrs JJ clothing in a stream with rocks asking for a sip of water..

i don't think a $25,000 settlement would hurt labella to where they would have to close down. and let's face it...it's unfair to jamerson's heirs to use his likeness without paying the estate. i'm on the widow's side in this one.

 

[JimmyM]

Although that's pretty far fetched (and hilarious), it's a good comparison. LaBella made sales based on the use of his image and legacy. The only reason I bought a set of their strings was specifically because I read that James used them. Where did I read it? In the back of the SITSOM book in that LaBella ad.

My question is this: if the ad was in the back of the book and Annie Jamerson endorsed the book and provided interviews, didn't she know about this back when the book came out?

man, i wish i could do another gig with allan slutsky and ask him about this!

yes, i name dropped. so what?

 

[JimmyM]

yeah nut, The news article says "at least $25,000" which is the bottom number.. it could go higher... and up to depending on the case and if the lawyer has a good gift of gab... if hes as good as a Johnny Cochrane..
Labella will be washing mrs JJ clothing in a stream with rocks asking for a sip of water..

HAHAHAHA! that's made me laugh out loud for real, kirk!

i have no axe to grind with labella, btw. i think they're a terrific company with a lot of respect for their customers. but you just can't use someone's likeness without their permission, especially if it's a for-profit venture. no matter how you feel about what a great and time-honored company labella is, it's wrong.

 

[Papazita]

The cover of the "Standing in the Shadows..." book looks like a line drawing or scan taken from a photo of James that is widely available on the Internet. ...On at least one other Internet site about James, it says the photo came from bassist Phil Chen.

This photo, or a line drawing/scan of this photo, is the one I've seen used by LaBella in advertisements and on packaging.
The question is (or, I think, should be), who owns the rights to this photo, and who licensed its use to LaBella? According to at least one other source, bassist Phil Chen is the owner of this photo. If LaBella bought the right to use that photo from Mr. Chen, then where is the harm? A person (or their relatives) do not "own" a photograph simply because they are the subject. That would be like any given artist suing Neil Zlozower for publishing the photos he takes. True, they are photos of you, but he owns them and can use them how he sees fit.

I can sympathize with Mrs Jamerson and her frustration with the continued lack of respect for her late husband (yes, I say lack of respect. Although we bass players and musicians may recognize and respect what James Jamerson did, a large part of the industry still couldn't care less.), I'm not so sure she has grounds for a suit. Out of fairness and respect to the Jamerson legacy, perhaps she should receive some amount of monetary compensation; but I also think that that should be at the discretion of the photo's copyright holder, not a company who simply licenses the use of said photo, and not a judge.

My .02.

 

[Febs]

yeah nut, The news article says "at least $25,000" which is the bottom number.. it could go higher...

Correct. The Michigan Rules of Civil Procedure require that every complaint contain a statement of the relief that the plaintiff seeks. Under the rules, the plaintiff must set forth a specific figure if the amount in controversy is for a sum certain or less than $25,000. If the amount in controversy is more than $25,000, a specific amount need not be stated.

Presumably, in order to comply with this rule, the complaint here contains an allegation to the effect of "plaintiff seeks judgment in excess of $25,000." This allegation in no way limits the potential recovery to $25,000 or suggests that $25,000 represents the value of the plaintiff's case.

 

[JimmyM]

This photo, or a line drawing/scan of this photo, is the one I've seen used by LaBella in advertisements and on packaging. The question is (or, I think, should be), who owns the rights to this photo, and who licensed its use to LaBella? According to at least one other source, bassist Phil Chen is the owner of this photo. If LaBella bought the right to use that photo from Mr. Chen, then where is the harm? A person (or their relatives) do not "own" a photograph simply because they are the subject. That would be like any given artist suing Neil Zlozower for publishing the photos he takes. True, they are photos of you, but he owns them and can use them how he sees fit.

wrong. publishing a pic in a magazine or book is waaaaaaaay different than using a pic in advertising a product. if i take a picture of howard stern and put it on the front of a t-shirt line i'm selling, i'm saying that howard stern endorses my product and is cool with me selling t-shirts with his face on them. but howard stern is most definitely NOT cool with it and has issued many cease and desist orders to people who have done it with threat of lawsuit if it continues. i may own the picture itself, but i certainly can't use it to sell a product without paying for the privilege. same goes for jamerson. your argument that someone else owns the picture will not hold up in court, nor should it.

 

[svtb15]

Jimmy you rock..

i believe labella, either right or wrong in this, will be determined in a court at this point...
Not sure, but that whole group of NY folks, sadowsky, labella, tech21, electro harmonix ,Aguilar and a slew of other small companies are at least friends with or are perhaps clients of my music attorney Ron Beinstock...
Dont know for sure... He has a tie with a few of those folks or at least did at one time.

And beinstock is a shark... one of the best of the best in the usa.. beinstock won the case against fenders conglomerate of body shape copy right or whatever it was...
Im just saying , that if beinstock gets in there.. wheww this will need a bowl of popcorn to sit and watch what happens..
But then again it could end in a whimper too.. time will tell

HAHAHAHA! that's made me laugh out loud for real, kirk!

i have no axe to grind with labella, btw. i think they're a terrific company with a lot of respect for their customers. but you just can't use someone's likeness without their permission, especially if it's a for-profit venture. no matter how you feel about what a great and time-honored company labella is, it's wrong.

 

[JimmyM]

Correct. The Michigan Rules of Civil Procedure require that every complaint contain a statement of the relief that the plaintiff seeks. Under the rules, the plaintiff must set forth a specific figure if the amount in controversy is for a sum certain or less than $25,000. If the amount in controversy is more than $25,000, a specific amount need not be stated.

Presumably, in order to comply with this rule, the complaint here contains an allegation to the effect of "plaintiff seeks judgment in excess of $25,000." This allegation in no way limits the potential recovery to $25,000 or suggests that $25,000 represents the value of the plaintiff's case.

right, but since they could have put $5,000,000+ as the relief they were seeking (and from a strictly legal standpoint, they could have done that by adding in punitive damages), i think $25,000 is a way more realistic figure, and the judgment will probably be in that ballpark if it goes to court.

 

[svtb15]

I have been under the impression that the person who takes the photo has all the rights to that photo and is the owner... much like what happens in paparazzi or concert photos..
Im not a legal expert, but just because someone takes your picture in a public place does not mean that you have the right to stop them from using it... I have no idea.. just bringing up some notes to consider and debate here.

EDIT: Im late to the draw JimmyM already outlined this above.

 

[Febs]

This photo, or a line drawing/scan of this photo, is the one I've seen used by LaBella in advertisements and on packaging.
The question is (or, I think, should be), who owns the rights to this photo, and who licensed its use to LaBella? According to at least one other source, bassist Phil Chen is the owner of this photo. If LaBella bought the right to use that photo from Mr. Chen, then where is the harm? A person (or their relatives) do not "own" a photograph simply because they are the subject.

There are (at least) two separate rights at issue here:

First, whoever took the photograph owns the copyright to the photograph and the unauthorized use of that photograph may constitute copyright infringement.

Second, there is a common law right to privacy, which includes the right of an individual to exclusive use of his own identity, as represented by his name or likeness. The appropriation of a plaintiff's name or likeness for a defendant's advantage is a recognized common law tort.

 

[Rickett Customs]

I have been under the impression that the person who takes the photo has all the rights to that photo and is the owner... much like what happens in paparazzi or concert photos..
Im not a legal expert, but just because someone takes your picture in a public place does not mean that you have the right to stop them from using it... I have no idea.. just bringing up some notes to consider and debate here.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. If I took a picture of you, that does not mean I own you or your likeness as a person (living or deceased), just the photograph itself. Now if you are the executor of an estate, IIRC, this can easily trump the owner of a photograph, especially without consent from an executor of said estate. but I could be wrong.

 

[Febs]

right, but since they could have put $5,000,000+ as the relief they were seeking (and from a strictly legal standpoint, they could have done that by adding in punitive damages), i think $25,000 is a way more realistic figure, and the judgment will probably be in that ballpark if it goes to court.

Sorry, Jimmy, but you're off base on this one. You simply cannot draw any such conclusion from the $25,000 allegation, because that figure is included for the sole purpose of complying with a court rule. Look at Rule 2.111(B)(2) here: post earlier in the thread.

In fact, Mrs. Jamerson's attorney confirmed this in a post earlier in the thread.

 

[Dark Horse]

One thing that I find oddly amusing is that it is very likely that MANY of the people here defending James Jamersons widow probably own "burned" copies of CD's he's played on (among many other burned CDs).

It's OK for them to steal from companies, but not OK for companies to profit off the likeness of an individual.


That said, I think LaBella owes the Jamerson family for years of "back compensation" .

(And as a recording artist, I don't own burned CD's... I like to actually help musicians that I like "continue" to make a living)


[/soapbox]
.

 

[JimmyM]

Sorry, Jimmy, but you're off base on this one. You simply cannot draw any such conclusion from the $25,000 allegation, because that figure is included for the sole purpose of complying with a court rule. Look at Rule 2.111(B)(2) here: post earlier in the thread.

In fact, Mrs. Jamerson's attorney confirmed this in a post earlier in the thread.

agreed, and i have heard of the actual damages grossly exceeding what the plaintiff asked for, but there has to be some sort of proof that the damages extend past the $25,000 figure they stated. whether they have the proof, i don't know, but considering labella is very much a small company and the jamerson set is but one set of many string sets they sell, the likelihood of them getting substantially more than $25,000 is not great, and it could be way less as well. just my opinion from an outsider looking in, but i can't see the damages being much more than that, quite honestly.

 

[Rickett Customs]

One thing that I find oddly amusing is that it is very likely that MANY of the people here defending James Jamersons widow probably own "burned" copies of CD's he's played on (among many other burned CDs).[/soapbox]
.

I can very easily say that I never have. I know of plenty of people who have, but i will mention I have not...

 

[peterpalmieri]

One thing that I find oddly amusing is that it is very likely that MANY of the people here defending James Jamersons widow probably own "burned" copies of CD's he's played on (among many other burned CDs).

It's OK for them to steal from companies, but not OK for companies to profit off the likeness of an individual.


That said, I think LaBella owes the Jamerson family for years of "back compensation" .

(And as a recording artist, I don't own burned CD's... I like to actually help musicians that I like "continue" to make a living)


[/soapbox]
.

I find it oddly amusing that you make this assumption and assume that you somehow take a higher road then others...

This could very well be the case but don't go pointing fingers at those that you do not have any information about.

 

[Dark Horse]

I can very easily say that I never have. I know of plenty of people who have, but i will mention I have not...

That is very respectable, and shows that you understand how the business works. If you want musicians to make a living, then you need to support them...not steal their (admittedly small in most cases) paychecks.

 

[Dark Horse]

I find it oddly amusing that you make this assumption and assume that you somehow take a high road then others...

This could very well be the case but don't go pointing fingers at those that you do not have any information about.

As I said...

"IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT MANY..."

That doesn't say "everyone is" or that "most are" or anything else. It simply says "very likely", and the polls taken about "burned" CDs in the past support that the majority of people own at least "some".

I'm not claiming that I'm taking a "higher road" than you or anyone else. I'm simply saying that the people defending James Jamersons widow (me included) should also be taking a look at ourselves and see if we are being just as guilty.

You are reading an awful lot into my post.

 

[Febs]

As I said...

This really has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Papazita]

wrong. publishing a pic in a magazine or book is waaaaaaaay different than using a pic in advertising a product. if i take a picture of howard stern and put it on the front of a t-shirt line i'm selling, i'm saying that howard stern endorses my product and is cool with me selling t-shirts with his face on them. but howard stern is most definitely NOT cool with it and has issued many cease and desist orders to people who have done it with threat of lawsuit if it continues. i may own the picture itself, but i certainly can't use it to sell a product without paying for the privilege. same goes for jamerson. your argument that someone else owns the picture will not hold up in court, nor should it.

There are (at least) two separate rights at issue here:

First, whoever took the photograph owns the copyright to the photograph and the unauthorized use of that photograph may constitute copyright infringement.

Second, there is a common law right to privacy, which includes the right of an individual to exclusive use of his own identity, as represented by his name or likeness. The appropriation of a plaintiff's name or likeness for a defendant's advantage is a recognized common law tort.

From what I can find, Phil Chen owns that photograph, and all associated rights to it. If LaBella began using the photo after the copright holder gave them permission, then they are allowed to use it.

The right to privacy, etc can be negated by the subject of the photo signing a release allowing the photo to be used for commercial purposes. I would think that it would have been part of Jamerson's contract with Motown to allow this type of commercial use. If this photo and its associated copyrights and commercial use rights was owned by Motown, and Motown transferred ownership, in whole, to another owner, than that owner may assume the same commercial use rights to the photograph.
Now, this is all hypothetical, because we do not know for certain the facts behind this photo and its ownership (ie who owned what and when, etc)