Quote
sundevil
hey dude. we got a tour coming up. don't really need a seperate threads for your imaginary events. your writing stinks, too.

let me fix the typo. that's "need seperate threads".

yeah, and the "attitude" ain't bizarre.

some people are looking for ticket drops, lucky dips, and other info to make their travel arrangements. some from europe, japan, south america. the delay in the tour announcement made making travel arrangements that much harder for some people. some won't buy plane tickets without a confirmed date, others won't travel without tickets in hand.

they don't need every other thread to be this stuff. the story of the stones in the bar is long-winded and doesn't even make sense. plus it what, covered a half an hour in 1968?

Ahem - no one is forced to read a thread they're not interested in.

Agreed !

If you look at a thread and don't like it, don't bother with it anymore.

Easy really.

Hi, we are working on the DVD with all kinds of interesting footage and interviews. Should be out in 2015. there is still a lead I did not follow up to my satisfaction: a living police officer in the know. I just can't figure out how to make him talk.

Dunno where the pic was taken.But makes me think of an old Brian story/interv.where he was at his parents home and looked out the window (into the garden?). Telling Thomas Beyl I wish I'd never left this place . .

Some people claim Brian was killed because he would not hand over the copyright on the name Rolling Stones. This is what an absolute insider on the case told me on a basis of confidentiality while researching for the book 'Brian Jones.The final truth' He does not want to be named.

“As for copyright on the name Rolling Stones, it was indeed Brian's chosen name for the band, but he had no legal claim to it. All I can add to this is that when Jann Wenner inaugurated ROLLING STONE magazine in 1967, Alan Klein filed a law-suit against him / the magazine alleging copyright or trademark infringement. Klein acted on behalf of the Stones and not on behalf of Brian. However, he was dissuaded from actually acting on and from ever pursuing that suit -- this, as I recollect, by Jagger, who feared such a suit could backfire on the Stones's image. I remember Charlie having been very flattered by RS's characterization of him as the greatest rock'n'roll drummer in the world, and came to learn from Jann Wenner later on that that eulogy had been to an extent tendentious with the ulterior goal of silencing that law-suit (!). Circa January/February 1969 Wenner showed up in London floating the project of launching a UK edition of RS. After several meetings and restaurant dinners et cetera (at which I was always present), Jagger enthusiastically undertook to invest 10,000 pounds in the venture and assigned me to oversee it on his behalf, which I did as far as was feasible -- except that it then devolved upon me to have to wind up the whole crazy business upon his return from Australia, seeing as things were not working out and real money was rapidly getting eaten up (i.e., debts were accumulating)..Anyway, I tell you this just to say that -- one of Wenner's foremost concerns was to get Klein's law-suit dropped, which Klein acceded to once Jagger advised him of his involvement / investment and instructed / requested him to do so.

If he calls him "Alan" Klein, the quality of the research is to be doubted from the start.

Why always pick on the ones who really get out there and do some real research? The guy I interviewed is sick and old now. As you might imagine, i did not interfere with the way he wrote down his memories. No redaction whatsoever. I was planning to release a lot more, but why would i if people like you react in such a petty manner without having any real understanding?

Let me guess: Terry Rawlings?

Terry is not old and sick. he was my writing partner for the book the final truth.Terry was 7 years old in 1969, hardly the age of the guy in the post.

If you want to push your book, put your posts all in one thread please.

There isn't a "Final Truth" to this. Not in this day and age with the Stones organization being what it is.

You can't copyright a name.

Wenner's reaction to Klein"s threats to sue was "tell it to Muddy Waters."

That proposed lawsuit had as much merit as the claim that brian Jones had a copyright on the name Rolling Stones. Utter rubbish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-16 18:45 by Rokyfan.

Wasn't there recently a group called "Rolling Stones Brothers" claiming to use the name since before 1962?

1958

[www.45cat.com]
Also:
1956

[www.45cat.com]
[rcs-discography.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-04-16 18:58 by Deltics.

Nothing new under the sun.

Quote
NEWMAN
Let me guess: Terry Rawlings?

No, it's Keith.

So....this starts out another sensationalistic turd of Brian being MURDERED! And then there's nothing to back that assertion up. And anyone who thinks Allan Klein wouldn't have clung onto a lawsuit benefiting him until the bitter end is insanely naieve. Does anyone think Brian Jones would have been smart enough to have copyrighted the name of the group? If such a thing is even possible. (There could be different UK and USA laws).

There was never a lawsuit there was Klein blowing smoke about one for about five minutes until people started pointing out to him all of the uses of the term Rolling Stones prior to his rock and roll band. Someone has conflated this old anecdote into the fantastic story posted.

Interesting info paulspendel. Don't be put off by people who don't agree with you. Any information from people who were involved is better than no information at all. We can obviously all draw our own conclusions from the data and decipher the credibility of the statements.

Stranger things have happened and to this day no one still alive really knows what truly happened in that swimming pool....but looking at Frank Thorogood doesn't give me a particularly warm fuzzy feeling about his innocence.

Don't know about the copyrighted name issue, or Brian's implied claim to it, but in is indeed an interesting connection between Jagger investing in RS magazine and the Klein lawsuit, sounds plausible.

As far as band names are concerned, indeed they can't be copyrighted but I believe they can be trademarked and band companies can named and therefore protected. Plenty of laws protecting the use of band names and we often hear of lawsuits by previous or current members over other previous or current members using the names. I'll bet the Stones have an agreement now days which prevents any member from using the name without certain conditions met. Certainly no Rolling Stones without Keith or Mick but does Ronnie have the same protection?

peace

In 2011 there was a tribute band in Seattle which just outright called themselves The Rolling Stones.
Don't know if they're still active, but they got media coverage and seemingly no flak from Micks lawyers.
[www.seattleweekly.com]

I say bunk. Whatever. Never heard of such tripe.

Wonder why the source refuses to be named.

All the major suspects with direct or suspected involvement in Brian's... demise are dead now--Klein, Keylock, Thorogood.

Is it someone still alive that the source is afraid of?

The daughter of Frank Thorogood says that her father witnessed an ugly scene when Mick, Keith, and Charlie came to fire Brian from the band. Allegedly things got ugly when Brian refused to hand over rights to the band name, and Keith was said to have erupted in a rage and pulled a blade on Brian when he refused, and things got so heated that Frank had to intervene.

After all, Keylock was Keith's minder before Brian's, and Keith fobbed Thorogood and his lazy, inefficient builders onto Brian, despite knowing that they were no good at their trade. Jus' typin'....

Allegedly things got ugly when Brian refused to hand over rights to the band name

Considering he never owned them this seems highly unlikely. Possibly he threatened to sue them and a heated discussion resulted, basically the idea is the same.

peace

Quote
Naturalust
Allegedly things got ugly when Brian refused to hand over rights to the band name

Considering he never owned them this seems highly unlikely. Possibly he threatened to sue them and a heated discussion resulted, basically the idea is the same.

peace

But we have a quoted source explaining that he did.

On what grounds could he threaten to sue? He would have had to furnish proof in court that he had something, some rights to the band... or even the name.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Naturalust
Allegedly things got ugly when Brian refused to hand over rights to the band name

Considering he never owned them this seems highly unlikely. Possibly he threatened to sue them and a heated discussion resulted, basically the idea is the same.

peace

But we have a quoted source explaining that he did.

On what grounds could he threaten to sue? He would have had to furnish proof in court that he had something, some rights to the band... or even the name.

If you are referring to the quote in this thread I think it says he never had true legal claim. Maybe he just threatened to start a new band with the same name since it was his idea. Besides threatening to sue doesn't have to have legal grounds, I'll bet Brian didn't have a clue about the legalities. Many lawsuits get filed without legal grounds and the threat of them can be just as effective as actually filing them. Many people and companies just choose to settle instead of participating in a fight where the lawyers get most the money and usually have no real incentive to end the case.

In fact it's good advice for anyone dealing with lawyers...make sure there is a goal and incentive to end the case as quick as possible. Lawyers obviously get paid by the hour and I've seen many people get burned because the lawyers had too much personal financial incentive to keep the case going.

peace

I think Brian developed the name Rollin' Stones. Small difference but a large difference in copywrite law. I don't think Brian drowned on his own. In my opinion, the builder, Frank had the motivation and was with Brian in the pool.
He seemed to also behave suspiciously after. Also that night Tom Keylock, whom
worked for the Stones and Beatles, said he burned all Brian's possessions. Tom
stated this was at the request of Brian. However, many of Brian's possesions
wound up on the memorabilia market. I personally know of one of Brian's gold
Discs that was discovered in a closet at Apple. Why was this burning of Brian's
Possessions, if actually true, not questioned by authorities? Certainly this
would be criminal today. Unless there was some written directive from Brian,
his possesions should have been part of his estate and I assume go to his
children (he had one or two children) or parents. Talk about a botched up investigation...

Brian signed the orginal contract for the Rolling Stones (the band) with Decca in May 1963. He was the representative for the band. In July 1965 the band (The Rolling Stones) renegotiated a five year deal. Jones was still the rep/owner of the band The Rolling Stones"..But all five members signed the contract. The band "The Rolling Stones" could not change it had to be Jagger/Richards/Wyman/Watts & Jones until July 31 1970. That is why Mick Taylor was not actually an official member (the 5th Rolling Stone) on paper and was only on salary until August 1, 1970. Although when the 69 tour was over I believe Mick T. got a fifth of the profits split evenly like an official band member.

In May 1969 when Jones "left" the band he still maintained the name "The Rolling Stones" and the band the Rolling Stones would still be Jagger/Richards/Wyman/Jones & Watts. After "leaving", Brian still could if he wanted form another band with other artist and keep the name "The Rolling Stones". We have seen this years later with other groups... there would be two or three bands touring with the same name like the Shangra La's, Sam & Dave and I believe the Temptations among other artist. Not a good thing for the band "The Rolling Stones" about to embark on a tour of the US in Nov. 1969. Well this never became a problem as Brian died in July 1969 before he could form another band.

But here is the surprise. Our Rolling Stones of 1962/63 ..really didn't own the name.. The name The Rolling Stones was owned by another band up in Northen England, they actually had the name registered/trade marked. They only foud out about our Rolling Stones when all of a sudden they were getting turned down at venues saying "we don't want your kind playing at our place".. When they found out about this other "Rock & Roll" band using their named they sued the Rolling Stones (probably Easton & Oldham) as well in 64/65 (I have the article about the suit, I'll read it again). Our Rolling Stones ignored the suits over & over, knowing they really didn't have a claim to the name.. But what eventually happened was the Offical band named "The Rolling Stones" after awhile stopped suing and broke up, leaving our "The Rolling Stones" owning the name I guess by default.

There has been a history of Bands named the Rolling Stones another U.K. band had the name "The Rolling Stones" in the late 20's early 30's. (there is even a photo of them) In the U.S I found a record released by "The Rolling Stones" from the late 40's early 50's I believe it ws a country band, by the title; if I can find it I will post the title and label. There was another band from Chicago for a short time I believe around 1954/55 that called themselves The Rolling Stones" for about 8 months to a year. One of their band members was the famous Luther Allison who later played with Howlin Wolf and Freddie King among others. So in the end I guess you could have started a band in 1963 and called yourself "The Rolling Stones" and might have been able to keep the name(If you wanted to fight it in court forever..

In the UK at least, the name does not have to be a registered trademark for it to be possible to sue somebody for essentially using your company's name and harming your trade or reputation:

[en.m.wikipedia.org]