[ad_1]
The artist's argument with Glassnote Entertainment is about non-interactive streaming royalties.
Donald Glover claims that the independent label with which he signed early in his music career owes him streaming royalties and miscalculated costs in violation of his license agreement, according to a counter statement filed Friday.
Glassnote Entertainment Group was the first to shoot in July, asking the court to rule that performance fees are due by non-interactive broadcast sites such as Spotify and SiriusXM.
The independent label claims to have paid $ 8 million in royalties to Glover since 2011 and plans to provide an additional $ 2 million this fall. This revenue excludes non-interactive streaming royalties transmitted via SoundExchange in accordance with the Federal Copyright Act.
Glassnote says that it is the owner of copyright and should receive half of those royalties, leaving 45% for Glover and 5% for non-star performers like producers and reserve musicians. He asks the court for a declaration specifying the correct distribution under the law.
Friday, the multi-processors continued Glassnote. The complaint by the company DJ DJ Recording of Glover, or DJR, alleges breaches of contract, good faith and fairness and fiduciary duty, as well as negligence.
"Despite millions of dollars for Glassnote, attracting notoriety, interest and hiding for the label, and securing many Grammy nominations and awards, Glassnote refuses to pay and pay DJR royalties it collected for its account representations and commitments under the license agreement, "wrote lawyer Jonathan D. Davis in the complaint.
Unlike a "typical" recording contract, DJR claims that it has retained the ownership of the Childish Gambino Masters and licensed them to Glassnote.
Under their license agreement, Glassnote was required to pay DJR 50% of its net proceeds from the exploitation of the works. Glover argues that this transaction includes the net proceeds of SoundExchange royalties.
Glover also states that a 2017 audit determined that significant royalties were due from July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. According to its complaint, Glassnote miscalculated the distribution and production costs, the international revenues under- declared and the manufacturing expenses erroneous. (Read the full sheet below.)
The artist is seeking a statement outlining the rights of the parties under their license agreement and is asking the court to dismiss Glassnote's complaint and order it to pay any money owed. He also claims that the label's actions were deliberate and malicious and sought punitive damages.
[ad_2]
Source link
