After the thread on the Beach Boys and finding out that Mike Love has the rights to the Beach Boys name for x amount of years, I was wondering how that might relate to the Stones.

1) Who does the name belong to (I assume to only the directors Mick, Keith and Charlie)? Ronnie has no claim at all?

2) If they were to break up, could Charlie put a new band together and call it the Rolling Stones? If no, could any of them?

3) Who must remain in the band to still call themselves the Rolling Stones?

4) Was there any proof that Brian Jones ever owned the name? I assume if you quit a band that remains active, then all claims are void?

and 5) For how long has the concept of ownership of a band name been a legal reality? In other words, did people think in those terms in 1962, or 1969? It's clear from all accounts that the name was Brian's idea, but whether that ever became official ownership is another matter.

I'll bet Klein thought of an ownership deal if Oldham didn't.

Mike Love?

The only agreement that makes sense is if one of them takes the name onward with a new band they simply must drop the S...

Quote
reg thorpe
Mike Love?

LOL.

Quote
Munichhilton
The only agreement that makes sense is if one of them takes the name onward with a new band they simply must drop the S...

The Rolling Tones?

I'd say Mississippi Muddy.

Quote
Koen

Quote
Munichhilton
The only agreement that makes sense is if one of them takes the name onward with a new band they simply must drop the S...

The Rolling Tones?

Even better
completely avoids any litigious situations

Quote
Green Lady
and 5) For how long has the concept of ownership of a band name been a legal reality? In other words, did people think in those terms in 1962, or 1969?

They did if they had a reason to think in those terms. Shortly after Buffalo Springfield's breakup in 1968, drummer Dewey Martin went on tour with a new band called the New Buffalo Springfield, until Stills and Young took legal action against him. Their friend David Crosby was known to have been very critical of Roger McGuinn for continuing to use the name Byrds, even after 1968, by which time McGuinn had become the Byrds only remaining original member. It was to avoid situations like this that Crosby, Stills and Nash named their band Crosby, Stills and Nash, ensuring that there could never be any changes in personnel without having to change the name of the group. Of course, there are ways around even this. Keith Emerson and Greg Lake once briefly replaced their drummer, Carl Palmer, with Cozy Powell, thus allowing them to continue using the name ELP.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-28 02:51 by tatters.

Apple



ROCKMAN

Didn't the whole name controversy start with The Temptations? Weren't there 2 bands calling themselves The Temptations (Otis Williams and Melvin Franklin) and (Eddie Kendricks, David Ruffin and Dennis Edwards)?

It happened to BLUE OYSTER CULT
When the Bouchard brothers left, they toured as the CULT BROTHERS
This also caused litigation

It even happened to The Stooges. Shemp told Moe "If I'm not in it, it's not The Stooges!" So Moe smacked him.

Quote
Rockman
Apple

Pear

Quote
tatters
It even happened to The Stooges. Shemp told Moe "If I'm not in it, it's not The Stooges!" So Moe smacked him.

anddddd
------------------------

"Doctor please, some more men please,
To Cotchford Farm, out by the pool...

What a drag it is they couldn't revive him"

Brian Jones 2/28/42 - 7/2/69

I believe Chris Squire owns the rights to the name YES.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
I believe Chris Squire owns the rights to the name YES.

NO!!

Obama

wasnt there a difference between The Rolling Stones and just Rolling Stones?

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Quote
MononoM
wasnt there a difference between The Rolling Stones and just Rolling Stones?

Is there a difference? Some albums have "The Rolling Stones" and some have "Rolling Stones". What is the official name?

Ron De Klein.

He also bought the Rutles from Leggy Mt. Batten, shortly before he moved to Australia.

When I found out I was shocked.

And stunned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-28 19:00 by vudicus.

So no local experts have a solid answer to this?
I bet it is just Keith and Mick, but I am not 110% sure.

Is it a Trademark ?

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
So no local experts have a solid answer to this?
I bet it is just Keith and Mick, but I am not 110% sure.

I have my usual seat-of-the-pants answer...

the brand "Rolling Stones" is owned, with restrictions, by Jagger Richards Watts
and Wyman

as is, very importantly, the tongue logo

the Brian Jones estate was bought out on their share of the brand long ago.
Brian obviously had no share in the logo.

and Wood owns nothing of the brand or logo. Neither does Taylor nor the estate
of Ian Stuart

the "restrictions" I mentioned refer to decision-making. One must be an active
member of the Stones to have a voice in the decision-making, which leaves all
calls up to Jagger Richards and Watts. Wyman still shares in any profits from
the brand or logo, but has no say in how they are used. I would further guess
that Wyman's cut is not a full 25%, but rather was negotiated lower under
duress. So make it for discussion's sake 28%, 28%, 28%, and 16%.

Keep in mind this is only about the brand and logo. The recording and song-
writing royalties are governed entirely differently, with obviously the
estate of Allan Klein a key player.

What I have written in bold above is Jagger's trump card. He figures he will
outlive Richards and Watts and so he can, once they pass away, lock in
certain aspects of how the brand and logo will be handled in perpetuity,
without having to deal with Patty Hansen or Seraphina Watts (who as I said
will still profit from Jagger's decisions, but will not be able to contest
them)

so there, Max, that's my seat-of-the-pants 5-minute answer. If I continue
to think about it, maybe I'll have some revisions later. Input from the
masses is as always encouraged.

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
So no local experts have a solid answer to this?
I bet it is just Keith and Mick, but I am not 110% sure.

I have my usual seat-of-the-pants answer...

the brand "Rolling Stones" is owned, with restrictions, by Jagger Richards Watts
and Wyman

as is, very importantly, the tongue logo

the Brian Jones estate was bought out on their share of the brand long ago.
Brian obviously had no share in the logo.

and Wood owns nothing of the brand or logo. Neither does Taylor nor the estate
of Ian Stuart

the "restrictions" I mentioned refer to decision-making. One must be an active
member of the Stones to have a voice in the decision-making, which leaves all
calls up to Jagger Richards and Watts. Wyman still shares in any profits from
the brand or logo, but has no say in how they are used. I would further guess
that Wyman's cut is not a full 25%, but rather was negotiated lower under
duress. So make it for discussion's sake 28%, 28%, 28%, and 16%.

Keep in mind this is only about the brand and logo. The recording and song-
writing royalties are governed entirely differently, with obviously the
estate of Allan Klein a key player.

What I have written in bold above is Jagger's trump card. He figures he will
outlive Richards and Watts and so he can, once they pass away, lock in
certain aspects of how the brand and logo will be handled in perpetuity,
without having to deal with Patty Hansen or Seraphina Watts (who as I said
will still profit from Jagger's decisions, but will not be able to contest
them)

so there, Max, that's my seat-of-the-pants 5-minute answer. If I continue
to think about it, maybe I'll have some revisions later. Input from the
masses is as always encouraged.

OK thanks, now we are getting somewhere. What is your opinion on the other questions in the first post. And what is the official name of the band - "Rolling Stones" or "The Rolling Stones"?

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
superrevvy

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
So no local experts have a solid answer to this?
I bet it is just Keith and Mick, but I am not 110% sure.

I have my usual seat-of-the-pants answer...

the brand "Rolling Stones" is owned, with restrictions, by Jagger Richards Watts
and Wyman

as is, very importantly, the tongue logo

the Brian Jones estate was bought out on their share of the brand long ago.
Brian obviously had no share in the logo.

and Wood owns nothing of the brand or logo. Neither does Taylor nor the estate
of Ian Stuart

the "restrictions" I mentioned refer to decision-making. One must be an active
member of the Stones to have a voice in the decision-making, which leaves all
calls up to Jagger Richards and Watts. Wyman still shares in any profits from
the brand or logo, but has no say in how they are used. I would further guess
that Wyman's cut is not a full 25%, but rather was negotiated lower under
duress. So make it for discussion's sake 28%, 28%, 28%, and 16%.

Keep in mind this is only about the brand and logo. The recording and song-
writing royalties are governed entirely differently, with obviously the
estate of Allan Klein a key player.

What I have written in bold above is Jagger's trump card. He figures he will
outlive Richards and Watts and so he can, once they pass away, lock in
certain aspects of how the brand and logo will be handled in perpetuity,
without having to deal with Patty Hansen or Seraphina Watts (who as I said
will still profit from Jagger's decisions, but will not be able to contest
them)

so there, Max, that's my seat-of-the-pants 5-minute answer. If I continue
to think about it, maybe I'll have some revisions later. Input from the
masses is as always encouraged.

OK thanks, now we are getting somewhere. What is your opinion on the other questions in the first post. And what is the official name of the band - "Rolling Stones" or "The Rolling Stones"?

Thanks revv... but I more hoping for an entertaiment lawyer opinion, or maybe hear from someone who is in a real (name brand, profitable) band who may have been through the name game battles)... but thanks

I suppose if I was motivated I would look up how whats-his-name came to own the Beach Boys name... maybe I will look it later.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-28 22:54 by Max'sKansasCity.

Oprah

These days the rule seems to be last man standing owns the name. So if a band splits up I don't think one can start touring a few year later with the name but if all the original members quit and are replaced the last original gets the name. Like Guns & Roses or Dr Feelgood.

What was/is the deal with Pink Floyd?