[ad_1]
Dylan rarely worked with other writers and Levy’s co-writing on Desire is arguably his most famous songwriting collaboration.
While with typical co-writing arrangements Levy would be entitled to share ownership of the songs, his deal with Dylan was rather done as a hire job which gave Dylan full ownership. Only, it wasn’t typical contract work either. Instead, the deal allowed Levy and his publisher to 35% of the song’s revenue, paid by Dylan or directly by a performing rights organization. (The contract says ASCAP and BMI, but Dylan has been signed with SESAC since 1995.)
According to the lawsuit, Dylan was obligated to pay the tax “Thirty-five (35%) percent of any income earned by the compositions and actually received by [the Dylan Defendants] mechanical rights, electrical transcriptions, reproduction rights, film synchronization and television rights, and all other related rights ”- that Claudia Levy and her lawyer Richard golub say should include a share of the sale of the Universal song catalog.
This claim will however be tested. Levy will likely continue to be entitled to that 35% of revenue from the use of the songs (which must now be paid for by Universal), but since he never held ownership of the songs, should he be entitled to profit? from selling songs? Dylan and his team will likely say no, claiming Levy was hired to help write the songs and then promised a cut in their royalties – and their royalties only.
“The term ‘income’, as set out in … the agreement, is unlimited and unambiguous,” says the complaint, which was filed by Levy’s lawyer Richard golub. He adds: “The terms of the agreement make it clear that the agreement is very atypical of a pay-for-work contract, giving claimants significant material rights and substantial material benefits that are not usually granted to contract workers. others and that the label works. -for-location is, in this case, a misnomer. “
The lawsuit also includes an allegation that Dylan and UMG denied Claudia Levy’s request for Levy’s “legitimate share” of the catalog sale in mid-December, about a week after the acquisition was announced.
In an attempt to establish that Levy’s contributions have “been diminished and hidden by the Dylan defendants” since their first collaboration, the complaint sets out a grievance schedule. These include an allegation that Levy was never credited on the posters or in the programs of Dylan’s 1975 tour, the Rolling Thunder Revue, despite being the show’s director. He also notes that Levy was never recognized in the 2019 documentary. Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese – a complaint previously brought by Levy’s son, Julien levy, in a 2019 article for Vice.
“This lawsuit is a sad attempt to take unfair advantage of the recent catalog sale,” Dylan’s attorney said. Orin Snyder in a statement sent by e-mail to Billboard. “The plaintiffs were paid everything they were owed. We are confident that we will succeed. And when we do, we will hold the plaintiffs and their lawyers accountable for this baseless case. “
Universal Music Group did not respond to Billboardrequest for comment from the company at time of posting.
Claudia Levy is asking for $ 7.25 million, including a total of $ 5.25 million for two counts of breach of contract and one count of “tortious interference in the contract” (all based on an estimate of $ 300 million. dollars for catalog sale), and $ 2 million in damages “to deter similar conduct from occurring in the future and to punish the Dylan defendants for their faults and breaches of contract.”
Dylan’s catalog sale, which was announced on December 7, was rated as the largest ever for a single songwriter.
[ad_2]
Source link