Comments on: The MC5 star in "Contract Law" – the most exciting film of the summer…not http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html Music in Seven Days from Seven Writers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:42:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Detroit Tango http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-21150 Detroit Tango Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:18:45 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-21150 Latest "MC5 - ATT" links ... <a href="http://indiegogo.com/mc5-truetestimonial" title="MC5 - A True Testimonial @ IndieGoGo" rel="nofollow"> <a href="http://detroittango.typepad.com" rel="nofollow"> Latest “MC5 – ATT” links …

]]> By: Mee http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-19388 Mee Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:27:42 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-19388 And their son was married to <i>Meg White</i>? *head explodes* And their son was married to Meg White? *head explodes*

]]> By: Mee http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-19387 Mee Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:27:06 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-19387 WTF, Fred Smith was married to Patti Smith? And they had a kid together? How did I not know this? WTF, Fred Smith was married to Patti Smith? And they had a kid together? How did I not know this?

]]> By: Bop City http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-19206 Bop City Sat, 05 Feb 2011 19:40:24 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-19206 “It’s a great document of the band, it’s a great document of life, and it’s a great document of things ... far and beyond the band.” - Jackson Smith, Detroit-based musician son of Fred & Patti Smith "Music so extraordinary that it transformed the lives of all who experienced it demands the release of a documentary that does the MC5 justice.  Few bands have ever seen so much go so wrong so quickly and have been so misunderstood in the process. A True Testimonial represents a belated opportunity to set things straight, put things right. The fans deserve it. So does the band. And so does the music." - Don McLeese, author of Kick Out The Jams (Continuum 33 1/3 series) http://tinyurl.com/MC5-ATT-poll “It’s a great document of the band, it’s a great document of life, and it’s a great document of things … far and beyond the band.” – Jackson Smith, Detroit-based musician son of Fred & Patti Smith

“Music so extraordinary that it transformed the lives of all who experienced it demands the release of a documentary that does the MC5 justice.  Few bands have ever seen so much go so wrong so quickly and have been so misunderstood in the process. A True Testimonial represents a belated opportunity to set things straight, put things right. The fans deserve it. So does the band. And so does the music.” – Don McLeese, author of Kick Out The Jams (Continuum 33 1/3 series)

http://tinyurl.com/MC5-ATT-poll

]]> By: Ramon Medina - LP4 http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3543 Ramon Medina - LP4 Tue, 22 May 2007 22:44:00 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3543 I'm not following "In their right mind" but here is an excerpt to answer your question in as best as I can condense it...The full article is here [<a HREF="http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/" REL="nofollow">http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/</a><br/><br/><i>On February 27 Future/Now and Rebecca Derminer filed a motion in Los Angeles federal bankruptcy court to reopen Kramer's Chapter Seven. According to Thomas they hoped to "determine if in fact [Kramer] had any publishing rights for the music of the MC5." Neither he nor Legler made clear what they planned to do with the information. <br/><br/>In his original filing, Kramer did not list, or "schedule," future royalties from record sales or publishing as assets. That's the technical grounds for Future/Now's motion, which adds that potential income from the documentary project should also have been included. <br/><br/>It goes on to argue that the case should be reopened so that a trustee can be appointed to determine the value of the assets and whether Kramer should be forced to liquidate them "for the benefit of creditors," including Derminer. <br/><br/>....<br/>Kramer's opposition response claims the omission of his future royalties was an honest mistake and requests that the file be reopened so he can amend it.<br/><br/>...<br/><br/>After a hearing on April 6 in Los Angeles, where Kramer lives, the judge ordered that the Chapter Seven case be reopened "for the sole purpose of permitting" a trustee "to review and determine the necessity and extent of any investigation regarding potential assets in this estate. If no action is taken by the trustee by August 6, 2004, the Clerk shall re-close the case without further notice or order of the court.'"</i> I’m not following “In their right mind” but here is an excerpt to answer your question in as best as I can condense it…The full article is here [http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/mc5/

On February 27 Future/Now and Rebecca Derminer filed a motion in Los Angeles federal bankruptcy court to reopen Kramer's Chapter Seven. According to Thomas they hoped to "determine if in fact [Kramer] had any publishing rights for the music of the MC5.” Neither he nor Legler made clear what they planned to do with the information.

In his original filing, Kramer did not list, or “schedule,” future royalties from record sales or publishing as assets. That’s the technical grounds for Future/Now’s motion, which adds that potential income from the documentary project should also have been included.

It goes on to argue that the case should be reopened so that a trustee can be appointed to determine the value of the assets and whether Kramer should be forced to liquidate them “for the benefit of creditors,” including Derminer.

….
Kramer’s opposition response claims the omission of his future royalties was an honest mistake and requests that the file be reopened so he can amend it.

…

After a hearing on April 6 in Los Angeles, where Kramer lives, the judge ordered that the Chapter Seven case be reopened “for the sole purpose of permitting” a trustee “to review and determine the necessity and extent of any investigation regarding potential assets in this estate. If no action is taken by the trustee by August 6, 2004, the Clerk shall re-close the case without further notice or order of the court.’”

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3542 Anonymous Tue, 22 May 2007 21:58:00 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3542 What filmmaker in their right mind sues a songwriter IN BANKRUPTCY COURT to secure song rights? What filmmaker in their right mind sues a songwriter IN BANKRUPTCY COURT to secure song rights?

]]> By: Justin http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3529 Justin Tue, 22 May 2007 13:55:00 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3529 The lawsuit in the Sinclair article is the first lawsuit and not any of the subsequent lawsuits. Yes, the filmmakers sued to secure the rights to use the songs in the movie. No, they aren't trying to take Kramer's songs away from him. Where do you get that? The lawsuit in the Sinclair article is the first lawsuit and not any of the subsequent lawsuits. Yes, the filmmakers sued to secure the rights to use the songs in the movie. No, they aren’t trying to take Kramer’s songs away from him. Where do you get that?

]]> By: Ramon Medina - LP4 http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3516 Ramon Medina - LP4 Tue, 22 May 2007 04:07:00 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3516 Interesting article but it's odd that Kramer is referred to as the songwriter when most songs were credited to the MC5.<br/><br/>A few key points made by the judge in what we are discussing:<br/><br/><br/><i><br/><br/>7. The renewal copyright interests of co-authors Robert Derminer and Fred "Sonic" Smith in fourteen of the fifteen compositions are co-owned by their widows and heirs pursuant to section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, former 17 U.S.C. section 24, in that Deminer and Smith died before the commencement of the renewal term. (Order on Summary Judgment Motions.)<br/><br/>8. Over the years, there has not been a clear record kept of ownership rights to copyright claims for MC5 music, with confusion resulting from distraction, indifference, and other matters. Non-party witnesses such as Angela Davis and Michael Davis identified this confusion. <br/><br/>30. Much of this case rests upon the credibility of witnesses, and the Court finds that Thomas and Legler were far more credible than Kramer on key issues concerning alleged promises, representations and commitments.<br/><br/>33. The Court concludes that there is insufficient factual basis to establish that a contract was formed that any of the Plaintiffs could enforce. Contract terms were never certain, and there was no meeting of the minds. The burden of proof on any contract claim was not met by any of the Plaintiffs.<br/></i> Interesting article but it’s odd that Kramer is referred to as the songwriter when most songs were credited to the MC5.

A few key points made by the judge in what we are discussing:

7. The renewal copyright interests of co-authors Robert Derminer and Fred “Sonic” Smith in fourteen of the fifteen compositions are co-owned by their widows and heirs pursuant to section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, former 17 U.S.C. section 24, in that Deminer and Smith died before the commencement of the renewal term. (Order on Summary Judgment Motions.)

8. Over the years, there has not been a clear record kept of ownership rights to copyright claims for MC5 music, with confusion resulting from distraction, indifference, and other matters. Non-party witnesses such as Angela Davis and Michael Davis identified this confusion.

30. Much of this case rests upon the credibility of witnesses, and the Court finds that Thomas and Legler were far more credible than Kramer on key issues concerning alleged promises, representations and commitments.

33. The Court concludes that there is insufficient factual basis to establish that a contract was formed that any of the Plaintiffs could enforce. Contract terms were never certain, and there was no meeting of the minds. The burden of proof on any contract claim was not met by any of the Plaintiffs.

]]> By: Ramon Medina - LP4 http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3515 Ramon Medina - LP4 Tue, 22 May 2007 03:26:00 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3515 Yeah,anon, I'm not quite following your argument. You are mixing two different issues and lawsuits and lumping it all together as one. Additionally, the film was getting played at festivals which is usually is about trying to secure distribution for the film and creating buzz not about ticket revenues for those screenings. <br/><br/>The judge in the lawsuit in question, the one that involves the filmmakers,wrote a judgment that was pretty damning of Kramer not being able to satisfy the burden of proof. Yeah,anon, I’m not quite following your argument. You are mixing two different issues and lawsuits and lumping it all together as one. Additionally, the film was getting played at festivals which is usually is about trying to secure distribution for the film and creating buzz not about ticket revenues for those screenings.

The judge in the lawsuit in question, the one that involves the filmmakers,wrote a judgment that was pretty damning of Kramer not being able to satisfy the burden of proof.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2007/05/mc5-star-in-contract-law-most-exciting.html/comment-page-1#comment-3514 Anonymous Tue, 22 May 2007 03:16:00 +0000 http://www.preddys.com/NAP/?p=227#comment-3514 Right here, in an excellent article penned by John Sinclair. <br/><br/><i> Evidently convinced that Kramer would not cooperate, Future/Now and Becky Derminer teamed up to file a motion in Los Angeles on Feb. 27, 2004, to reopen Kramer’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case from 1999. </i><br/><br/>The entire accurate account can be read in full here http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6324 .<br/><br/>And here as well, from Kramer's open letter explaining why the film was stopped.<br/><br/><i> Last month Dave Thomas, Laurel Legler and Rebecca Derminer (Tyner) entered a motion in court to strip me of my MC5 songs. Now, I must now defend myself both in federal court and in the court of public opinion. This is an effort on their part to coerce me to relinquish my rights to my work and my story. </i> Right here, in an excellent article penned by John Sinclair.

Evidently convinced that Kramer would not cooperate, Future/Now and Becky Derminer teamed up to file a motion in Los Angeles on Feb. 27, 2004, to reopen Kramer’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case from 1999.

The entire accurate account can be read in full here http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6324 .

And here as well, from Kramer’s open letter explaining why the film was stopped.

Last month Dave Thomas, Laurel Legler and Rebecca Derminer (Tyner) entered a motion in court to strip me of my MC5 songs. Now, I must now defend myself both in federal court and in the court of public opinion. This is an effort on their part to coerce me to relinquish my rights to my work and my story.

]]>