Have all the legal issues with ABKCO been resolved or are they ongoing to this day?
I know Alan Klein own the rights to their material prior to Sticky Fingers. Do Jagger/Richards have a better royalties deal for their older material?

I could never understand why the Beatles(except Macca) decided on Alan Klein.

As Keith once said it was a price of an education.

Sam Spade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I could never understand why the Beatles(except
> Macca) decided on Alan Klein.


simple. Klein re-negotiated their royalties and publishing rights and made them a fortune. Up until the late 60's, despite their huge record sales, the Beatles were still on a long-term deal that theyd signed at the start of their careers which wasnt as lucrative as it should have been, considering their success

jagger50 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As Keith once said it was a price of an education.


and at the nyc press conference in '69 Mick says "sexually satisfied, financially dissatisfied, philosophically trying", as Alan Klein is standing behind.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sam Spade Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >> I could never understand why the
> Beatles(except
> > Macca) decided on Alan Klein.
>
>
> simple. Klein re-negotiated their royalties and
> publishing rights and made them a fortune. Up
> until the late 60's, despite their huge record
> sales, the Beatles were still on a long-term deal
> that theyd signed at the start of their careers
> which wasnt as lucrative as it should have been,
> considering their success


hence the formation of Apple Corp?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't ALO accept the one off payment from Klein on behalf of the Stones?

jagger50 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't ALO accept the
> one off payment from Klein on behalf of the
> Stones?


I have no idea

Sam Spade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I could never understand why the Beatles(except
> Macca) decided on Alan Klein.


Well, because The Beatles always imitated the Stones. What the Stones did first, The Beatles followed later...

Seriously, The Stones did have a significant role here, at least according to one Beatle:

"It was Mick who got us together. I had heard all these dreadful rumours about him but I could never co-ordinate it with the fact that the Stones seemed to be going on and on with him and nobody ever said a word. Mick's not the type to just clam up, so I started thinking he must be all right." - John Lennon

- Doxa

In the 50s and 60s most artists were depending on managers and such figures.
Hard to comprehend today. Still the hawks and vultures are around.
It's also easy to blame these these dudes when things go bad.

...Dont wanna be picky but it's usually to spelled: "Allen" Klein.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the 50s and 60s most artists were depending on
> managers and such figures.
> Hard to comprehend today. Still the hawks and
> vultures are around.
> It's also easy to blame these these dudes when
> things go bad.
>
> ...Dont wanna be picky but it's usually to
> spelled: "Allen" Klein.

I always assumed his first names were "That C**t" because thats how most Stones fans seem to refer to him...

That's the middle name.

>> Have all the legal issues with ABKCO been resolved or are they ongoing to this day?
I know Alan Klein own the rights to their material prior to Sticky Fingers. <<

well ... isn't that how the legal issues have been resolved? or: what other legal issues do you mean?
"the repercussions of course are with us to this day ..."


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Have all the legal issues with ABKCO been
> resolved or are they ongoing to this day?
> I know Alan Klein own the rights to their material
> prior to Sticky Fingers. <<
>
> well ... isn't that how the legal issues have been
> resolved? or: what other legal issues do you
> mean?
> "the repercussions of course are with us to this
> day ..."

On Hot Rocks an ABKCO release, Brown Sugar and Wild Horses are both on this album yet, both songs are on Sticky Fingers which in fact was the first album released on Rolling Stones Records. Have they split the differnce with Mr Klein where these 2 songs are concerned?

those 2 songs have appeared on other Decca-era greatest hits compilations (eg the 1977 Arcade Tv advertised album "Get Stoned"), plus "Wild Horses" appears on disc 1 (the ABCKO/Universal disc) of "40 Licks"

Brown Sugar and Wild Horses (and You Gotta Move?) were recorded in 1969, at Muscle Shoals - and they can't even deny it, they've got it on film. :E
since the Stones' contract with Klein was still in force then, those tracks are his.
Klein ever so graciously ceded Sticky Fingers to the Stones in the settlement or whatever to call it,
but obviously held onto the rights to those numbers. (Brown Sugar's on that third singles box set too, isn't it?)


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-18 00:59 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brown Sugar and Wild Horses (and You Gotta Move?)
> were recorded in 1969, at Muscle Shoals - and they
> can't even deny it, they've got it on film. :E
> since the Stones' contract with Klein was still in
> force then, those tracks are his.
> Klein ever so graciously ceded Sticky Fingers to
> the Stones in the settlement or whatever to call
> it,
> but obviously held onto the rights to those
> numbers. (Brown Sugar's on that third singles box
> set too, isn't it?)


Yes, I'm aware those 2 number were recorded at Muscle Shoals and on film. So now my new question is do the Stones own the publishing rights to their material post 1971 and Klein owns prior to 1971?

Does ABKCO collect fees each time one of his pre 1971 songs is played in concert?

>> do the Stones own the publishing rights to their material post 1971 and Klein owns prior to 1971? <<

well, they broke with Klein in mid 1970, so i think that (not 1971) is the critical date; but: yeah, that's the general idea.
of course, i'm sure there are miles of details that ordinary mortals aren't aware of ...
oh and i believe part of the deal is that Klein can't release any more unreleased material from the period he holds sway over -
Metamorphosis was it.

i don't know if Klein collects when the Stones perform the early stuff; i suppose he does.
when concert recordings that include Klein-owned stuff are released, ABKCO is involved,
but i don't know what the details of the arrangement are.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-18 01:21 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brown Sugar and Wild Horses (and You Gotta Move?)
> were recorded in 1969, at Muscle Shoals - and they
> can't even deny it, they've got it on film. :E
> since the Stones' contract with Klein was still in
> force then, those tracks are his.
> Klein ever so graciously ceded Sticky Fingers to
> the Stones in the settlement or whatever to call
> it,
> but obviously held onto the rights to those
> numbers. (Brown Sugar's on that third singles box
> set too, isn't it?)


This is where it gets a bit too complicated for me!

The only song that appears on "Sticky fingers" where the recorded version pre-dates 1970 is "Sister Morphine" (recorded March 1969).

Brown Sugar and Wild Horses were indeed recorded at the Muscle Shoals session in early December 1969 - but the released versions come from spring 1970.

Oddly enough, on the first pressing of "Hot Rocks", they erroneously issued early takes of BOTH of those songs from a session at Olympic Studios in mid December. The Stones also recorded early takes of both Dead Flowers and You Gotta Move.

The 'Sticky Fingers' versions of Brown Sugar and Dead Flowers were both recorded on the same day (24.4.70)

(credit to Nico Zentgrafs site for most of the info on this!)

I'm guessing that youre probably right that Klein/ABKCO own the rights up to a certain cut-off date in mid-1970 (it doesnt help that none of the other songs from early 1970 appear on any ABCKO compilations) and depending what songs were copyrighted by the time of that agreement. The anomaly is however that both Brown Sugar AND Wild Horses have appeared not only on ABCKO compilations but on Rolling Stones Records compilations as well. I cant think of any other Sticky Fingers songs that have appeared on compilations, aside from "Bitch" which has only been on RSR-era packages - but which wasnt recorded until October 1970 (presumably AFTER the 'break' was made)

I'm not sure if Klein still collects royalties on pre-1971 recordings. I would imagine he does. He certainly did in the early 70's because the 1972 live album was scrapped due to legal wrangling over ABCKO material



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-04-18 01:42 by Gazza.

Posted by: with sssoul (IP Logged)
Date: April 17, 2006 05:14PM

i don't know if Klein collects when the Stones perform the early stuff; i suppose he does.
when concert recordings that include Klein-owned stuff are released, ABKCO is involved,
but i don't know what the details of the arrangement are.

Isn't there a DECCA unreleased live album from '72? Was that album not released because at the time it was too close to Ya Yaa's or just more legal entanglements with DECCA, ABKCO and the Stones?

ABKCO owns the copyrights to the 60's Stones catalog including Sugar and Wild Horses. Since Klein owns the copyrights, he can sell the usage of the songs to others, like Complicated is currently in a computer commercial. Stones will still collect royalties from it.

There is no legal issue. Klein owns the songs before and even partly including Sticky Fingers. Always will. That is how he can get slightly more than 50% out of a double CD like FORTY LICKS, where it was supposed to be equal share. But he is smart so he can block the whole project unless he gets more than 50%. Which is telling us pretty much how the legal status is.

But I don't think he can sell the songs to anyone. He is owning the songs. I.e. the recordings. That is for sure. But I think they both have to agree on a sale. Otherwise we would have seen much more use of the old songs in commercials.

But the Stones can go their way around that ownership. With projects like Stripped. And live albums. I wish they did more of that. I like the fresh takes on old songs. Like 19th Nervous Breakdown 2005 version. Just love it. Hope they will record or release it. Plus all those others. They will probably, for the European tour - I hope.

Bjornulf

I must say that I have gotten an education today.

When the Stones do actually call it a day, Klein or his heirs will still be making loads of cash from any re-issues of pre- Exile material.

Thanks to all of you.

>> Isn't there a DECCA unreleased live album from '72? Was that album not released because at the time it was too close to Ya Ya's
or just more legal entanglements with DECCA, ABKCO and the Stones? <<

it wasn't because it was too close to YaYas; the parties involved couldn't agree on terms.

>> The only song that appears on "Sticky fingers" where the recorded version pre-dates 1970 is "Sister Morphine" (recorded March 1969).
Brown Sugar and Wild Horses were indeed recorded at the Muscle Shoals session in early December 1969 - but the released versions come from spring 1970. <<

thanks Gazza! i forgot about Sister Morphine. i thought the release of Brown Sugar is a remix of the Muscle Shoals track
(minus one guitar, plus one sax), but in any case it seems to have been done before the Crucial Klein Cut-Off Date;
or maybe the decision of how to divvy up Sticky Fingers was somewhat formal/arbitrary.
i remember reading that Klein felt he could have claimed that whole album. sigh: the whole saga is mighty hair-raising, isn't it.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

If you look at "the Rolling Stones fake Book" you will see that Klein
owns the rights of all the "Sticky Fingers" songs (except "you gotta move")
et some "Exile" songs (Sweet Virginia, loving cup, all down the line, shine
a light)

A few people here have mentioned "selling" songs to companies for advertising.

I'm pretty sure that companies don't "buy" the songs that they use, they merely license them for use in advertising.

Brad F Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few people here have mentioned "selling" songs
> to companies for advertising.
>
> I'm pretty sure that companies don't "buy" the
> songs that they use, they merely license them for
> use in advertising.

Yes, I believe the song(s) is licensed. Didn't Miscrosoft pay something like 2 million for Start Me Up for their Windows 95 campaign?

Music is licensed in different ways: there is the rights to the sound recording and there is rights to the intellectual property of the song as a composition.

Klein owns the *recordings* <1971, the actual sound that is. For instance: that's why he gets the money for the sample of The Last Time orchestra version strings; he owns the recordings of that. If the Stones want to use any of those sound recordings for a purpose Klein has to give permission and gets a share.

As far as I know ABCKO also owns the publisher's share of the publishing rights <1971. Jagger/Richards have the other share and, as writers, have a say about anything the songs are used for.

From Sticky Fingers onwards the Stones own everything themselves via Rolling Stones Records or the Promo companies and have thus far licensed those rights to big companies as CBS, Virgin for certain periods of time.

If they sell a song like Start Me Up, do the 2 million dollars go to the writers or a part to the writers and the other part to the band who performed it.
In this case it will be the stones so Ronnie, Charlie and Bill would get a share but if it was another band who covered it and Microsoft would use that version, who would get the money? Jagger and Richards of course a part for the writing but how much would end up in the hands of the band performing the song? Or would the writer of the song always have a say in what happens to a song?

Cheers,
Wuudy

My guess would be that the songwriters get the proceeds.