VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:06:54 11/20/04 Sat
Author: Billboard
Subject: Suit Questions Legal Obligations of Co-Songwriter

Suit Questions Legal Obligations of Co-Songwriter
Fri Nov 19,2004/ By Susan Butler

NEW YORK (Billboard) - What obligations do co-songwriters owe to one another? Can one idea that is similar to another be used for a song without creating any legal obligations to the original idea-man?

These are some of the questions raised in a lawsuit filed Nov. 5 by James Jess Brown in the Chancery Court in Nashville. Brown, who claims 34 recorded songs to his credit, sued Tony Lane and his publisher, Famous Music, over "Letters From Home," the title track to John Michael Montgomery's album. The track is credited to co-writers Lane and David Lee.

Brown's suit does not allege that Lane infringed any copyright interest. Instead, he asserts that Lane used Brown's "idea or hook (that) involved specific letters written by Brown's now-deceased father to his mother during a time of war when Brown's father was stationed abroad."

The suit says that Brown followed his customary procedure of taking notes of his writing sessions. The notes reflect that this subject and lyrics were proposed to Lane for their collaboration. However, they moved on to another project and did not complete the composition.

Brown bases his legal claims on the writers' pre-existing relationship over a six-year period during which they co-wrote 14 compositions, his attorney J. Carson Stone says. The suit contends that their dealings established a fiduciary relationship, creating a responsibility on their parts to protect each other's financial well-being and to maintain ideas as confidential information -- not to be shared with anyone, including a publisher.

Under state laws, a fiduciary must act with a greater degree of care, loyalty and confidentiality toward the other party than that which is legally required in most business relationships.

These laws clearly recognize certain types of fiduciary relationships -- attorney-client, doctor-patient and financial adviser-client, where one party relies on the other's superior, specialized knowledge of certain subjects. Partners in a formal business partnership also have fiduciary obligations toward one another.

When two or more people do not have a formal partnership, however, courts may still find a fiduciary relationship when the parties had a lengthy relationship and their activities involved a high level of trust or financial dealings.

Litigators defending parties who are sued as fiduciaries usually mount a strong challenge to this legal theory because it can lead to a defendant being obligated to provide more information than originally agreed upon or being held to a higher standard of care, resulting in unanticipated liability.

For example, under contract law, each party to a contract -- whether oral or written -- is required only to comply with the terms of the contract and to act in good faith. This means that each contracting party is not obligated to provide any information to the other party, maintain any confidentiality or adhere to any principles of loyalty other than as specifically agreed upon by the parties.

In a fiduciary relationship, however, the parties are in a relationship of trust. Therefore, they must disclose to one another all important information that may affect any one of them. They must also maintain a certain level of confidentiality about their dealings so that third parties are not privy to their activities.

There does not appear to be any case that specifically recognizes fiduciary obligations between co-songwriters. Brown's suit may shed light on the rights of songwriters or it may be resolved between the parties without answers. Either way, it will add fuel to the ongoing discussion about possible fiduciary obligations in the industry.

Lane and Famous Music declined to comment.

Reuters/Billboard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.