The genesis of this came up in another thread, and maybe there's an older thread on this, but I was curious about the end game on Brian. If I remember correctly when he was fired there was some sort of financial agreement. I think it was a rather large lump sum (for that time), but what I'm curious about is what Brian had to agree to for that money. Was that lump sum in exchange for him signing away all future rights to mechanical/Nanker Phelge royalties, and his own legal rights concerning the band and it's name? As Klein was probably behind the particulars of the settlement, I'm sure it did not favor Brian.

Nothing compared to the 30 pieces of silver Mick and Keith got!

Quote
24FPS
The genesis of this came up in another thread, and maybe there's an older thread on this, but I was curious about the end game on Brian. If I remember correctly when he was fired there was some sort of financial agreement. I think it was a rather large lump sum (for that time), but what I'm curious about is what Brian had to agree to for that money. Was that lump sum in exchange for him signing away all future rights to mechanical/Nanker Phelge royalties, and his own legal rights concerning the band and it's name? As Klein was probably behind the particulars of the settlement, I'm sure it did not favor Brian.

As always with Brian there are lots of rumours and stories that contradicts each other than there's fact. Nobody seems to know what he agreed to sign. We only know what he was going to get for doing so. We also know that Brian never got the first chunk of money he was promised and Klein was the one who made it so.

I guess you're right with your last sentence - whatever the contract was it didn't favor Brian. But I think that he was glad to keep getting pay and to be out of the band.

Interesting thread,24FPS ..but sorry ,I don't know the answer
I am willing to read about it .

I guess anything associated with Brian's involvement with the Stones would come under Klein contracts. I would be curious to know if his heirs ever received a dime. (By heirs, I mean his parents/sister. I've never heard of any of his 6(?) illegitimates making a claim.) There must have been some sizable income generated in 2002 with the CD reissues of the ABCKO related CDs. I don't now what happens to mechanical royalties over time, put Brian was entitled to one fifth of all Nanker/Phelge songwriting.

I also wonder if there's anyone who negotiates for his likeness. There's a lawyer in Indianapolis whose made a pile representing the commercial rights of dead celebrities like James Dean. Brian does appear on the odd T-shirt. I wonder if he's just outright ripped off, or that somebody, somewhere, gets income generated by Brian Jones. When the T.A.M.I. show was issued on DVD, I imagine they had to negotiate with the individuals to secure their images. So, that makes me wonder who profits from Brian Jones income generated profits? Obviously the Stones, Bill, Charlie, Mick & Keith, wouldn't have cooperated with the release of 'Rock and Roll Circus', without adequate compensation above and beyond songwriting royalties for Mick and Keith. That leaves Brian, and the question of who negotiates for him? Common sense would say his sister, as she's the closest surviving blood relative, but who knows?

I'm assuming that Mick Taylor must have received financial compensation for the 'Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones' DVD. I assume this, because he'd be a fool if he didn't get paid, or hire a lawyer if he was screwed over.

We know Jim Morrison's consort, Pamela, received his cut post death until she offed herself in an overdose. Then the royalties went to his immediate family. We know that all things Jimi Hendrix are totally controlled by his half-sister (and wasn't she adopted?) Janie. But I've never even heard a mention of what happened to Brian Jones Inc. after he died. With only an interview or two around the time of his death, the Jones family seemed to draw a shroud around their privacy. Who knows, maybe they still have the right to profit from Brian's image, and just don't realize it.

Quote
24FPS
But I've never even heard a mention of what happened to Brian Jones Inc. after he died. With only an interview or two around the time of his death, the Jones family seemed to draw a shroud around their privacy. Who knows, maybe they still have the right to profit from Brian's image, and just don't realize it.

I have a feeling that Brian's family (ie. his parents) got money from the Stones. They have been so quiet over the years, which is suspicious. Not one word from Brian's immediate family in 43 years? Not even from his sister?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-06-21 23:33 by neptune.

Oddly, Bill Wyman mentions very little about any financial agreement that was made between Brian and the band when he left. And Bill Wyman constantly mentions money in his book, Stone Alone. It's a little unclear to me as well. I could never understand how Brian could get 100,000 pounds ($240,000 U.S. dollars) for leaving the band when according to Bill Wyman's book Stone Alone, the band was having a hard time getting money from Klein to pay their monthly utility bills. Of course as we know the Stones ended up leaving England to live in the South of France because of tax problems. I would assume Brian would have had the same problem as the rest of the band had he lived. As a matter of fact it has been mentioned that Brian was heavily in debt when he died. I would assume his debts were all related to the tax problems they had with Klein. This is something no one ever mentions. Based on what I read, I don't see how Brian could have gotten that kind of money from the band at that time.

Quote
originalstones
I could never understand how Brian could get 100,000 pounds ($240,000 U.S. dollars) for leaving the band when according to Bill Wyman's book Stone Alone, the band was having a hard time getting money from Klein to pay their monthly utility bills. Based on what I read, I don't see how Brian could have gotten that kind of money from the band at that time.

If, and I don't know where the figures came from, I believe they varied, but, if, Brian was given such a large sum (for 1969) at the time, which had to be all figured out by the shark Allen Klein, it appears to me he was being cashed out against all future earnings and rights. And, if such a sum was available, then Klein had a bigger cash cow on his hands than he was telling the boys.

Allen probably understood, aided by expensive lawyers, that Brian had as much right to the very name 'The Rolling Stones' as any of the others had, especially since it was well known, and Keith confirmed it, that Brian named the group spontaneously while on the phone with a potential client for a gig. And, it was well known, and there were/are newspaper clippings as legal proof that Brian had advertised to recruit members to a group he was forming. Maybe Klein understood that Brian had every right to the name, and that the group could find it impossible to tour and release records as 'The Rolling Stones' without Brian's permission; and if Brian had a clear head, lived longer, and gotten crack representation, could have made them pay a dear price for use of that name. Brian, a clear headed, well represented Brian, could have threatened, by all rights, to form a new group and called it The Rolling Stones.

Mick, Keith, Bill, Charlie, and whoever, might have survived with a new name, but the casual fan would have been confused. The casual fan had barely noticed Brian's death, mainly because he wasn't integral to the songwriting, and there was still a group called The Rolling Stones. Imagine the legal and financial implications of being forced to desist from using 'The Rolling Stones' name when they toured. It sounds trivial, because it's the same people, but names are brands and very, very valuable. Too bad there's no direction to go in to research this. And amazing that it's never made its way into any of the countless biographies and autobiographies. Brian's silence by death, and perhaps the show business naivete of his family, might have been taken advantage of.

Terry Rawlings, in his book Who Killed Christopher Robin?, said said the Stones offered Brian a one-off payment of 100,000 pounds to be followed by a yearly payment of 20,000 pounds for as long as the group existed. Terry Rawlings isn't the most reliable source out there, so who knows?

Peanuts. 20,000 pounds a year for a group he started. What I'm also curious about is who in the world had the authority to fire Brian Jones from his own group? They may have done it, and somehow convinced Brian they could do it, but did they legally have a leg to stand on? Had Brian refused to tour? Was he contractually obligated to tour where he would need a visa? Maybe the Stones wanted to do it, and maybe Allen Klein wanted to do it, and maybe they convinced Brian they could do it, but where did they draw the authority to do so? You could argue that they 'hired' Bill to play bass. And they pursued and 'hired' Charlie Watts to play drums. But no one hired Brian Jones. No one in the group, or the group's management, had the power to hire and fire Brian. (Unless some exceedingly stupid and secret agreement was made.)Arguably only Brian and Stu are the original founders of the group. And there was ample evidence that Brian was seen as the leader of the group in its infancy.

Any lawyer worth his scratch could contend that Brian was taken advantage of. Who knows what Brian agreed to when Mick/Keith & Charlie 'fired' him in May of '69? I was going to e-mail Bill but now his website doesn't have a way to contact him. I've never heard that Brian signed anything. And we know that it wasn't a mutual agreement to part. Keith said in an interview years later that, "We went down there and said cock, you're out!" Once again, my question is, where did they draw such authority to terminate Brian Jones? Were there contracts stating members had to participate in a certain percentage of studio dates? That's doubtful. It's almost laughable to think that the Rolling Stones of the 1960s would have standards of comportment.

I'm sorry these questions have to go unanswered. Still, it would be fascinating to know if there were signed contracts that Brian had breeched, or if they just bluffed the poor boy out of his own group. Didn't Mick threaten Brian with dismissal if he didn't make the May photo shoot for the Through the Past Darkly LP? How and when did Mick receive such power over Brian's fate? Did the group, at some point in the 60s, legally become Mick's? Or, Mick & Keith's? And Brian agreed to that?

According to Aftel's book Death of a Rolling Stone, she quotes an interview Mick gave to Creem magazine in 1974 where Mick says what they really wanted to do at the time was to play on stage and Brian wasn't in any condition to play. Mick goes on to say he thought Brian didn't want to and it pissed him (Mick) off.

Of the June 8th meeting Brian told the others he couldn't do it again. He couldn't start on the road again like that. He said he couldn't go to America and do those one-nighters anymore. Mick and Keith told him they understood and would come and see him in a couple of weeks to see how he felt. Then they asked him how he wanted to make it known to the media. They asked him if he wanted to say he left. To that Brian replied "say I've left and if I want I can come back." They told him they were ready to tour and had Mick Taylor lined up.

According to Aftel's book Brian told his father that since he was unable to go to America because of his drug conviction, the band had decided to drop him from the group. Brian then called his father one day before the news was announced to say the break from the Stones wasn't permanent. It was only due to the American tour and that he would rejoin them for the European tour in 1970.

How much time was there between the firing and his death? I am wondering how much tome he had to review and sign any legal documents and if he was even in any sane condition to do so?

Quote
neptune

Quote
24FPS
But I've never even heard a mention of what happened to Brian Jones Inc. after he died. With only an interview or two around the time of his death, the Jones family seemed to draw a shroud around their privacy. Who knows, maybe they still have the right to profit from Brian's image, and just don't realize it.

I have a feeling that Brian's family (ie. his parents) got money from the Stones. They have been so quiet over the years, which is suspicious. Not one word from Brian's immediate family in 43 years? Not even from his sister?

If this was happening today, his family would have sold their story by now for loadsamoney, because that's how most people are these days. But Brian came from a quiet, religious family and, payment or no payment, it is wrong to consider that their silence is suspicious. They are just behaving properly in an old fashioned British way. I very often wish we could return to those values. I'm fed up with every lowlife who ever slept with a Z list celeb getting paid for selling the sordid details to a red top rag. The Jones family are showing dignity; what happened to it?

Quote
Elmo

Quote
neptune

Quote
24FPS
But I've never even heard a mention of what happened to Brian Jones Inc. after he died. With only an interview or two around the time of his death, the Jones family seemed to draw a shroud around their privacy. Who knows, maybe they still have the right to profit from Brian's image, and just don't realize it.

I have a feeling that Brian's family (ie. his parents) got money from the Stones. They have been so quiet over the years, which is suspicious. Not one word from Brian's immediate family in 43 years? Not even from his sister?

If this was happening today, his family would have sold their story by now for loadsamoney, because that's how most people are these days. But Brian came from a quiet, religious family and, payment or no payment, it is wrong to consider that their silence is suspicious. They are just behaving properly in an old fashioned British way. I very often wish we could return to those values. I'm fed up with every lowlife who ever slept with a Z list celeb getting paid for selling the sordid details to a red top rag. The Jones family are showing dignity; what happened to it?

Stanley Booth visited Brian's parents and spoke to them for his book True Adventures (aka Dance With The Devil). It's not clear when he met them - the book was much delayed - but I didn't get the feeling it was 1969 somehow. Does anyone know?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-06-22 13:37 by Thricenay.

Quote
24FPS
Peanuts. 20,000 pounds a year for a group he started. What I'm also curious about is who in the world had the authority to fire Brian Jones from his own group? They may have done it, and somehow convinced Brian they could do it, but did they legally have a leg to stand on? Had Brian refused to tour? Was he contractually obligated to tour where he would need a visa? Maybe the Stones wanted to do it, and maybe Allen Klein wanted to do it, and maybe they convinced Brian they could do it, but where did they draw the authority to do so? You could argue that they 'hired' Bill to play bass. And they pursued and 'hired' Charlie Watts to play drums. But no one hired Brian Jones. No one in the group, or the group's management, had the power to hire and fire Brian. (Unless some exceedingly stupid and secret agreement was made.)Arguably only Brian and Stu are the original founders of the group. And there was ample evidence that Brian was seen as the leader of the group in its infancy.

Any lawyer worth his scratch could contend that Brian was taken advantage of. Who knows what Brian agreed to when Mick/Keith & Charlie 'fired' him in May of '69? I was going to e-mail Bill but now his website doesn't have a way to contact him. I've never heard that Brian signed anything. And we know that it wasn't a mutual agreement to part. Keith said in an interview years later that, "We went down there and said cock, you're out!" Once again, my question is, where did they draw such authority to terminate Brian Jones? Were there contracts stating members had to participate in a certain percentage of studio dates? That's doubtful. It's almost laughable to think that the Rolling Stones of the 1960s would have standards of comportment.

I'm sorry these questions have to go unanswered. Still, it would be fascinating to know if there were signed contracts that Brian had breeched, or if they just bluffed the poor boy out of his own group. Didn't Mick threaten Brian with dismissal if he didn't make the May photo shoot for the Through the Past Darkly LP? How and when did Mick receive such power over Brian's fate? Did the group, at some point in the 60s, legally become Mick's? Or, Mick & Keith's? And Brian agreed to that?

There is some doubt whether Brian or Stu was the founder of the group, that´s one thing. The other is that you don´t have the total ownership of the group, just because you started it. You need band members to make the group function, and all the members have to contribute to make it work.

If they had contracts, it would be easy to fire Brian for not fulfilling his part of what´s expected of him in the late 60s.

There is no doubt, Stu Was not the founder of The Rolling Stones.

According to Keith, he was

Quote
Elmo
If this was happening today, his family would have sold their story by now for loadsamoney, because that's how most people are these days. But Brian came from a quiet, religious family and, payment or no payment, it is wrong to consider that their silence is suspicious. They are just behaving properly in an old fashioned British way. I very often wish we could return to those values. I'm fed up with every lowlife who ever slept with a Z list celeb getting paid for selling the sordid details to a red top rag. The Jones family are showing dignity; what happened to it?

Brian's father have been interviewed about Brian in the early 70's. But no words about Brian leaving the band or what was said from the Stones after Brian's death.





I've read a lot about Brian but I haven't find any qoute from his mother or sister. Brian's father passed away in 2009 but his mother may still be alive.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
According to Keith, he was

According to Stu himself Brian was the founder. Keith has his reasons why he always piss on Brian. A girl sometimes means the end of a friendship.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-06-22 14:14 by tonterapi.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
According to Keith, he was

Depends which year you choose to quote him from. ><

Stu replied to Brians musicians wanted ad. Yah can't be the founder of something someone else has already started to set up.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-06-22 14:13 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
According to Keith, he was

Depends which year you choose to quote him from. ><

Stu replied to Brians musicians wanted ad. Yah can't be the founder of something someone else has already started to set up.

No disagreement from my part

Quote
tonterapi
We also know that Brian never got the first chunk of money he was promised and Klein was the one who made it so.

Really? Please identify the definitive source stating Klein stopped payment.

Quote
24FPS
Allen probably understood, aided by expensive lawyers, that Brian had as much right to the very name 'The Rolling Stones' as any of the others had, especially since it was well known, and Keith confirmed it, that Brian named the group spontaneously while on the phone with a potential client for a gig.

I always love when this silly piece of Keith BS about there being a telephone at Edith Grove gets repeated

I believe Brian's family still gets royalties. I thought one of Brian's children said so in an interview about how the family will not be hospitable to any of Brian's kids.

As for how Brian could be fired from "his" group, that's pretty simple. The fact that Brian named the band or was the leader during their club days is meaningless from a business perspective. When Oldham and Easton came along, The Stones walked away from Giorgio Gomelsky because there was no contract to hold them. Likewise, Brian did not "own" The Rolling Stones in a legal fashion. The five members of the band were signed to contracts with Klein, Decca, and London Records in 1969. The rest of the band, or at least a majority, agreed to fire Brian since they could not tour because of him and because his studio output had suffered. They didn't break any laws in doing so. All five were equally members of the band and Brian had been reduced to an overpaid sideman by that time. He was a casualty preventing them from touring overseas and making real money so he was fired. He was offered a settlement that seemed reasonable to him at the time and he took it. Whether his family have altered the arrangements over the years is not likely to be disclosed. Obviously they are compensated enough to keep their mouths shut (likely a legal clause). I very much doubt it is a lump sum each year - especially not 20,000 pounds 40 odd years on. It is more likely Brian's share of royalties paid from ABKCO.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

As for how Brian could be fired from "his" group, that's pretty simple. The fact that Brian named the band or was the leader during their club days is meaningless from a business perspective. When Oldham and Easton came along, The Stones walked away from Giorgio Gomelsky because there was no contract to hold them. Likewise, Brian did not "own" The Rolling Stones in a legal fashion. The five members of the band were signed to contracts with Klein, Decca, and London Records in 1969. The rest of the band, or at least a majority, agreed to fire Brian since they could not tour because of him and because his studio output had suffered. They didn't break any laws in doing so. All five were equally members of the band and Brian had been reduced to an overpaid sideman by that time. He was a casualty preventing them from touring overseas and making real money so he was fired. He was offered a settlement that seemed reasonable to him at the time and he took it. Whether his family have altered the arrangements over the years is not likely to be disclosed. Obviously they are compensated enough to keep their mouths shut (likely a legal clause). I very much doubt it is a lump sum each year - especially not 20,000 pounds 40 odd years on. It is more likely Brian's share of royalties paid from ABKCO.

Good points all, but I'm saying from a legal standpoint that Brian would have had a good argument if he had been angered and wanted to fight the group. He could have caused an injunction against them using The Rolling Stones name. What BS I hate to see repeated is that they were all five equally members of the band. Then why did Bill continue to think he could be the next one dismissed from the group? I sincerely doubt that Charlie would have agreed to that. That crap that Mick propagated about 'there is no leader' is such tripe. Mick and Keith say what goes and have done so since the 60s. They have to find a way to keep Charlie happy, and that's all. And I'm not criticizing them for that. Much as I like Bill, it wasn't a hippie communal rock band that told him his songs stunk and wouldn't be on Rolling Stones albums.

Also, is there some sort of source for Brian 'rejoining' the band? His statement about not 'seeing eye to eye on the discs we are cutting' sounds pretty final. I don't think Mick Taylor was introduced as 'the guy who is going to temporarily stand in Brian's exalted spot and be tossed when we tour Europe in 1970'.

Making great music...

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Rocky Dijon

As for how Brian could be fired from "his" group, that's pretty simple. The fact that Brian named the band or was the leader during their club days is meaningless from a business perspective. When Oldham and Easton came along, The Stones walked away from Giorgio Gomelsky because there was no contract to hold them. Likewise, Brian did not "own" The Rolling Stones in a legal fashion. The five members of the band were signed to contracts with Klein, Decca, and London Records in 1969. The rest of the band, or at least a majority, agreed to fire Brian since they could not tour because of him and because his studio output had suffered. They didn't break any laws in doing so. All five were equally members of the band and Brian had been reduced to an overpaid sideman by that time. He was a casualty preventing them from touring overseas and making real money so he was fired. He was offered a settlement that seemed reasonable to him at the time and he took it. Whether his family have altered the arrangements over the years is not likely to be disclosed. Obviously they are compensated enough to keep their mouths shut (likely a legal clause). I very much doubt it is a lump sum each year - especially not 20,000 pounds 40 odd years on. It is more likely Brian's share of royalties paid from ABKCO.

Good points all, but I'm saying from a legal standpoint that Brian would have had a good argument if he had been angered and wanted to fight the group. He could have caused an injunction against them using The Rolling Stones name. What BS I hate to see repeated is that they were all five equally members of the band. Then why did Bill continue to think he could be the next one dismissed from the group? I sincerely doubt that Charlie would have agreed to that. That crap that Mick propagated about 'there is no leader' is such tripe. Mick and Keith say what goes and have done so since the 60s. They have to find a way to keep Charlie happy, and that's all. And I'm not criticizing them for that. Much as I like Bill, it wasn't a hippie communal rock band that told him his songs stunk and wouldn't be on Rolling Stones albums.

Also, is there some sort of source for Brian 'rejoining' the band? His statement about not 'seeing eye to eye on the discs we are cutting' sounds pretty final. I don't think Mick Taylor was introduced as 'the guy who is going to temporarily stand in Brian's exalted spot and be tossed when we tour Europe in 1970'.

He would never have rejoined, they didnt want him in the band (understandable), he knew this, hence the passive aggression. Of course Mick wanted to be leader and so did Keith, sort of. And they treated him like shit, not always but one could imagine based on various accounts from the band and others. They were young alpha males ffs. Its not like Keith and Mick were adults. Keith still havent grown up.

Quote
courtfieldroad
Really? Please identify the definitive source stating Klein stopped payment.

I will try to help you with that. Sadly, I don't keep notes on where I find what from the books, articles and what have you that I've read and watched about Brian.
From what I remember it said that Klein was furious about the thought of keep paying Brian after he left the Stones. If anyone in the band would ask for money it was Brian and he kept on asking. The Stones office kept sending his requests but Brian never got any answer or money he had been promised. Someone at ABKCO had the power to do so. Who else but Klein?

24FPS, Brian had no legal ground to stand on that he owned the name. They were kids when it started, there was no paperwork drawn up apart from management contracts, song publishing, and recording contracts. Fair or not, he wasn't in a position to dictate to the others.

The concept of intellectual property was decades away from becoming a reality and even hypothetically, it still might not have proved legally binding in a band situation with the original contractual members. They wre all ripped off many times in the sixties. There was no legal representative to determine who even owned the name and trademark until Prince Rupert suggested it as a way of protecting the band and generating ancillary income. Of course, by that point Brian was long since gone.

Fans can feel it was Brian's band as much as they like, but just as Keith pretends it's Stu's band, it doesn't mean Stu's widow or son are entitled to nice cheque every time the band generates income. Such attributions of ownership are inconsequential in any legal sense and either pertain to what should be (as in the belief that Mick Taylor was ripped off) or express sentimentality. Sadly. the law is often unfair and almost never sentimental.

Good points, and I don't know the difference between English and U.S. law as applies to name copyrights. I still think a sober, well represented Brian could have fought them down the road if he had so desired for a share of the pie, one 5th of that pie, at least through 1969, and perhaps beyond. This is of course only something a fan would be interested in, but I'm surprised it's never been written about before. They obviously have to deal with his royalties, both mechanical and Nanker Phelge credits, to this day. His image is reproduced from time to time on merchandise. I'm just curious about the ins and outs of that. Somebody gets that money.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
courtfieldroad
Really? Please identify the definitive source stating Klein stopped payment.

I will try to help you with that. Sadly, I don't keep notes on where I find what from the books, articles and what have you that I've read and watched about Brian.
From what I remember it said that Klein was furious about the thought of keep paying Brian after he left the Stones. If anyone in the band would ask for money it was Brian and he kept on asking. The Stones office kept sending his requests but Brian never got any answer or money he had been promised. Someone at ABKCO had the power to do so. Who else but Klein?

There's the key, "it said that Klein was furious". IT said, WHO said? To my knowledge, none of the Stones have ever talked of a pay out, so you have these sources like Spanish Tony making claims that are never substantiated.

Take unsubstantiated claims and someone takes them and runs wild on the internet, not bashing 24FPS, but hence threads like this one.

Not bashing you, tonterapi, either! It's just that people tend to spread these tenuous claims like VD, without thought or care for the quality of the source that put it out there in the first place.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Nothing compared to the 30 pieces of silver Mick and Keith got!

Ouch!