Let Us Now Praise David Jacobs

 I recently finished reading Darryl H. Bullock's entertaining book The Velvet Mafia.  The subtitle pretty much explains the whole premise: The Gay Men Who Made The Swinging Sixties.  The book  presents a detailed portrait of some people I know a lot about – Larry Parnes, Brian Epstein, Sir Joseph Lockwood, Joe Orton and Joe Meek as well as people I knew a little bit about including Robert Stigwood, Lionel Bart and the infamous Lord Boothby.  All of these players were instrumental in the British entertainment industry of the 1960s and, coincidentally, they were all gay.

 

The character who fascinated me the most is David Jacobs, the solicitor to the stars.  At one point he had offices in both London and Hollywood.  He had both The Beatles and Brian Epstein as clients as well as Winston Churchill's daughter, Judy Garland, Diana Dors, Shirley Bassey and John Profumo.  At one point he sued the Daily Mirror for libel on behalf of Liberace, for implying that Liberace was homosexual – and won!  He apparently was known to appear in court in full makeup.

 

Tragically, Jacobs died a sad death  – found hanging in his garage.  The book questions whether his death was a drug induced suicide or something far more sinister.

 

I found the story of David Jacobs positively inspiring in some ways.  One doesn't hear about entertainment lawyers being as interesting as their clients.  The idea that Jacobs could be negotiating major deals for Brian Epstein one minute and getting a famous politician’s daughter out of the jail the next makes most contemporary law practices  seem positively dull. 

 

It’s a fascinating book and gives a lot of deep background into the entertainment business in London before and during the British Invasion. I have only one criticism. In an otherwise well written work, I came across  the worst sentence I think I've ever read:  "According to the inquiry, Halliwell used a hammer to strike Orton, whom he had met at RADA,  on his head at least nine times."

Online Legal Research back in the Day

 I was leafing through the SMU Law School alumni magazine when I came upon this photograph of the school's first online computer research terminal from Lexis. This is the exact machine we learned to do legal research on in my first year of law school. It took hours. No wonder I preferred to use the books. I still do, although I have to admit online legal research has become a lot easier. 

Co-Writing, Works Made for Hire and Happy Birthday Bob

(collage by Gwil Owen)

 It's Bob Dylan's 80^th birthday, and I wanted to mark the occasion by reviewing the complaint in one of the strangest lawsuits I have seen in some time. 

 Late last year, it was announced that Bob Dylan had sold his catalog (including the writer's share of income) to Universal Music Publishing Group for approximately $300 million, one of the highlights in  the recent frenzy of catalog acquisitions.  Shortly thereafter, on January 20, 2021, Claudia Levy, the widow of songwriter/psychoanalyst/theater director Jacques Levy, filed suit against Dylan and Universal for breach of contract, alleging that the Levy estate was somehow due some part of the proceeds that Dylan received from the sale because of the fact that Levy co-wrote ten songs with Dylan, including the majority of the songs on Desire ("Isis" is a personal favorite).

 

None of that is surprising; contractual disputes occur all the time.  What intrigued me is that Dylan's co-writing arrangement with Levy was a "work made for hire" agreement where Dylan not only owned Levy's share of the copyright, but that for copyright purposes, Levy was Dylan's employee – with no ability to ever recapture his share of the copyright.  Even more surprising is the fact that the contract specified that Levy would receive only 35 percent of the writer’s share of income from the songs, rather than the traditional 50/50 co-writer's share.

 

  The complaint goes on to list a litany of complaints against Dylan and his associates, but I remain most fascinated by the whole work-made-for-hire concept.  It seems so foreign to any traditional notion of co-writing – although the history of the music business is full of examples of artists and performers making "unique" deals with their collaborators – this one is fairly new to me.  Oddly, Dylan's Motion to Dismiss the claim, which was filed in March, refers to the work-made-for-hire arrangement as "standard." Maybe these deals made more sense back in 1975.  I wonder if he had a similar arrangement with Sam Shepard? I will say that I agree with Dylan's attorneys that the complaint is without merit – the contract clearly gave Dylan the right to assign the copyrights and the deal doesn’t disturb Levy’s continued income stream.  It doesn't look as if the court has ruled on the. Motion  yet.  

 

 Anyway, happy birthday, Bob.  We're lucky to be living in the same time as you.  

 

 

 

 

 

The Boss Approves

 I have neglected my little blog for a while now.  It looks like I only posted seven times in 2020.  It's not like I had anything else going on. 

 

 Seriously, this was not intentional.  I have several things I really want to delve into and hope to get them up soon.

 

  However, I did want to mention how cool it is that Bruce Springsteen has his own radio show, From His House To Yours on Sirius XM.  I have been a fan of Springsteen's since before he was the Boss, and I have known since the first time I saw the E Street Band live that he has excellent taste in covers.  So I was thrilled to find out that last November, he played Jeffrey Foskett's version of "Cool and Gone," written by my compadres Bill Lloyd and David Surface (originally recorded by Bill on his Standing on the Shoulders of Giants album).

 

 Then on March 11, 2021, Bruce opened the show with the great Bobby Sutliff and his song "Kings of Flannel" followed a little later by Bobby and Tim Lee's band The Windbreakers doing "Girl from Washington," a song I've had stuck in my head since the first time I heard it.  This was followed a little later by Webb Wilder and his recording "Battle of the Bands".

 

How cool is that? I count all of these guys as clients and friends, and there is something really significant about their music getting acknowledgement from the Boss.  These are all great songs and great artists.  Check them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRATITUDE

 This being Thanksgiving, I see a lot of commentators reflecting on the concept of gratitude, especially in this strange (and let's face it, awful) year.  It seems weird to ponder gratitude while there is so much suffering.  However, I feel it.  My wife and I just celebrated one of those milestones of parenthood when our daughter graduated from college.  She had a rough start to her college career, through no fault of her own, and to see her bounce back and finish strong (cum laude – dad brag) fills me with pride and yes, gratitude.  

 

            I've also been thinking this week about a conversation I recently had with a  client.  She thanked me for some advice I gave her, probably 25 or more years ago, when she was a young songwriter just starting out.  She had been offered a deal with a company I knew to be less than reputable, and I advised her to pass on the offer.  I didn't hear from her for some time after that, but when I started working with her again on some new matters, she reminded me of that first consultation and how she appreciated the counsel.  I was genuinely thrilled to hear that.  Lawyers try hard to make a positive difference in their clients' lives, and when one can actually see tangible proof of that effort and acknowledgement, there's no better feeling.  So my Thanksgiving wish for everyone, to paraphrase writer, Brene Brown, is to "Stop and celebrate one another and our victories … we need to celebrate our accomplishments right now".  I can think of no better way to end 2020.

 

Or to quote Paul McCartney: https://tinyurl.com/y68g4lfz

The Go-Go's Documentary

 I watched  the Go-Go's documentary on Showtime a month or so ago and I have been thinking about it ever since.   I know anecdotally that the film left out a lot.  I have even written about the group's dysfunction before https://tinyurl.com/y4e3p7f4.

Nonetheless this is an intensely watchable film and the early punk footage of the band is fascinating.

 

Ultimately the Go-Go's documentary serves as an unpleasant reminder of the music business as it existed in the 1980s.  I have very little nostalgia for those days.

 

The film is pretty honest in recounting the group’s history.  They ruthlessly fired two early members.  In one case they made their manager fire the bass player (reminiscent of the Beatles making Brian Epstein fire Pete Best).  They the forced their  manager, Ginger Canzoneri (who had shepherded them from the L.A. punk clubs to a No. 1 album) to seek more "experienced" managers to the point where she just resigned.  Finally, original member Jane Wiedlin quit the band rather than being forced to share her publishing with the non-writing members of the group.  Plus, there are drug problems, health problems and three really great albums.

 

I bring all of this up to make a point.  The issue with songwriting is serious and it can break up even the sturdiest group. Wiedlin says in the documentary the  new managers came to the group after they had completed their third album and tried to force them to sign an agreement to split publishing.  This was a huge mistake.  The time to discuss these type of issues is before a band records their first album.  Of course, this is easier said than done.  No group wants to sit in a room and discuss partnership agreements and music publishing splits, but I think it is really critical.  You can trace so many band breakups  back to music publishing disputes.  Lennon and McCartney were wise to cut their bandmates in on the publishing (albeit with minority shares) but songwriting and publishing were among the myriad of issues which helped break up that band.

 

I am glad that the Go-Go’s got past all of that and continue to perform today and I hope that this documentary can serve not only as a testament to a groundbreaking rock band but also serve as a lesson in band dynamics, loyalty and  diplomacy. 

            

Adventures In Dry-Cleaning

 I recently read  about the so called, "pants lawsuit", Pearson v. Chung, in which an administrative law judge sued a dry cleaner for $67, 000,000.00 over allegedly losing a pair of slacks.  The case dragged on for years before Pearson lost both at trial and on appeal.  Before it was all over though the dry cleaner had to close his  business and incurred almost $100,000.00 in legal fees (which were recovered thanks to several fund raisers).  

The case led to the District of Columbia Board of  Professional Responsibility seeking to suspend Pearson's law license for engaging in

frivolous litigation.  

 

Although I was unaware of this infamous case, I have a lot of sympathy for the dry cleaner because it reminded me of one of my favorite clients,  the late Phil Efron owner of Nashville's Douglas Corner Cleaners and Entertainer Wardrobe Services (which was next door to the equally famous Douglas Corner which just closed).  I could write an entire chapter on how I met Phil Efron but when he opened his dry cleaners, we worked out a barter system – I traded legal services for dry cleaning.

 

This led to some interesting adventures.  Phil had been a dry cleaner in Las Vegas and had actually worked for Elvis Presley at one point.  He was the guy who made those scarves that the King threw out to his fans.  At some point, Phil decided to sell replicas of the scarves in various collector's magazines.  I remember his ad ran something like, "We made them for Elvis now we'll make them for you".  Inevitably, Phil received  the cease and desist letter from the Estate of Elvis Presley.  Phil asked me to deal with the estate's lawyer on his behalf.  I researched everything I could about the right of publicity, First Amendment law, etc. and called E.P.'s lawyer.  He was very amiable and polite but after I finished my spiel , he basically said, "We represent Elvis Presley and we will sue your client into the ground…thank you very much.”  Phil stopped selling the scarves, although I know I have one around here somewhere.  

 

Our second case was more successful.  Phil had been sued by a bride to be  who claimed that the dry cleaner had shrunk her wedding dress.  The case went to court.  It didn't help that my former law partner's cousin showed up as a witness for the plaintiff.  However, we had an expert witness, the  head of the Tennessee Association of Dry Cleaners who testified that it is essentially impossible to shrink a garment in only one specific area – in this case the waist.  I wisely resisted the urge to demand that the plaintiff try on the garment.  We won; the case was dismissed. 

 

 I did a lot of other work for Phil and was sorry that he decided to sell the business, but it had taken a toll on him.  I gained a healthy respect for the job these people do and the level of service that they must provide on a daily basis.  I miss Phil. I also miss those freshly ironed shirts.