Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
Randys Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 3664
Reply | Quote
Legal Purple Questions


The topic "New Purple Lineup" inspired me to write this topic.

I read somewhere that there is a stipulation that any three of Blackmore, Gillan, Glover, Lord, Paice, Coverdale and Hughes can be called DEEP PURPLE.

Let's pretend that this is the scenario:

Purple decides to disband in 2005, but two years later Gillan decided to reform DEEP PURPLE, but Glover, Paice, Airey and Morse declined to join.

The questions are:

1) Can Gillan alone reformed Purple with other musicians without being sued???

2) What about Gillan and Glover, can they reformed Purple with other musicians without getting sued???

3) Who really owns the right to the DEEP PURPLE name???
22/3/2005, 4:03 Link to this post Send Email to Randys   Send PM to Randys
 
Witchy Nightmare Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 3330
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


I've read a while ago that after the 1980 Rod Evans fake band there was a rule established that a band must include at least four DP members from MK I/II/III/IV to be allowed to name themselves "Deep Purple". They stuck to that rule until Jon Lord left and Don Airey arrived - now just three original members were left. But then they said (to my disappointment) that Steve Morse already had been with them long enough to count as an "original member", and so it was decided that they could keep the name.

So I fear that there are many things possible concerning the use of the name, even if perhaps not the ones you mentioned. And the fans will be asked at last ...
22/3/2005, 21:45 Link to this post Send Email to Witchy Nightmare   Send PM to Witchy Nightmare
 
dprocks Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 10-2004
Posts: 268
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


Do the original and subsequent members of DP meet on a regular basis to go over business matters....whatever they may be concerning Deep Purple?
23/3/2005, 4:33 Link to this post Send Email to dprocks   Send PM to dprocks
 
SneakyPrivateLee Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 486
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


From what I know rights to the name DP are divided with the main (longest) DP members and these include Lord, Blackmore and Paice. I'm not sure how does it look with Gillan and Glover. They also have rights but not as many as the first three. To form a band they need an agreement between especially the first three who owe most rights to the name.

I think I've read somehere in an interview with Lord that if he didn't agree the band won't be able to exist under the name of DP, which means that he could have the biggest portion of the rights to the name of the band.

However, I'm not a 100% sure of that. I'm sure that it's impossible for only one member of DP to form a band just like that.
23/3/2005, 6:52 Link to this post Send Email to SneakyPrivateLee   Send PM to SneakyPrivateLee
 
MrEd45 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Admin

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 9983
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


 I think that the term 'original line-up' was applied to Blackmore, Gillan, Glover, Lord + Paice in the wake of the lawsuit(s) involving both Nick Simper - remember, he also took the other 3 original members, Blackmore, Lord + Paice to court over his ousting from the group and his initial refusal to accept the terms of his termination. I think this was sometime in the early 70s when that case was finally settled, I think. Rod Evan's legal adventures have been fairly well documented here on this forum and elsewhere, so no repeat is necessary. The bottom line was that each had relinquished any rights to the name Deep Purple in their settlements - for or against them. Thus, the term 'original' members has, in effect, been the members of MkII.
 My feeling is that any subsequent personnel departures that are the result of a member quitting and being replaced - Gillan/Coverdale, Glover/Hughes, Blackmore/Bolin are all mutually agreed upon and the ownership of the name Deep Purple isn't an issue. 'Mutually agreed upon' being the key phrase here. I say that because Gillan's 1989 departure wasn't wholly voluntary on his part, according to him. But with 4 of the original members remaining, the question of ownership of the Deep Purple name wasn't questioned.
 My understanding regarding Blackmore's voluntary departure in 1993 has, in effect, the same result as Gillan's involuntary departure about ownership of the name. Same with Lord's retirement.
 Now for the 'tricky' questions (which have been asked on this forum before, if I'm not mistaken) :

1) What if, as 'original members', Blackmore + Lord form a band (tomorrow) and manage to recruit any one of the following - Gillan, Glover or Paice - would they have a 'majority' basis to call their band Deep Purple?

2) What if, as 'original members', Blackmore + Lord form a band (tomorrow) and manage to recruit two of the three original members, but one wants to stay with the situation as is and recruit 4 other musicians to continue recording/touring as Deep Purple?
  
  Well, there's just two messy scenarios I for one hope never to see as an actuality.
 As for the legal aspects - and I could be wrong - but didn't the '1980 Bogus Deep Purple' court case set some precedents in the music industry as far as 'ownership' of a band's name and the legal entanglements of Pink Floyd + Yes in later years add some 'refinements' to those precedents?

---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.

" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
23/3/2005, 23:03 Link to this post Send Email to MrEd45   Send PM to MrEd45 Blog
 
Witchy Nightmare Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Purple fan

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 3330
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


And what if Blackmore, Lord, Coverdale, Hughes and for example Bobby Rondinelli come together and want to do a record as "Deep Purple" ?
24/3/2005, 15:16 Link to this post Send Email to Witchy Nightmare   Send PM to Witchy Nightmare
 
MrEd45 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Admin

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 9983
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


quote:

Witchy Nightmare wrote:

And what if Blackmore, Lord, Coverdale, Hughes and for example Bobby Rondinelli come together and want to do a record as "Deep Purple" ?






 I think that your scenario goes into that 'majority' of the 'original members' thing. With only two of what are considered the five 'original members' and with the other three - I'm assuming that your scenario takes place while the current band 'Deep Purple' + it's current line-up are still a recording/performing entity - still in a band that has the legal rights to the name 'Deep Purple', I think there'd probably be some legal issues involved.
 



---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.

" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
24/3/2005, 16:00 Link to this post Send Email to MrEd45   Send PM to MrEd45 Blog
 
mrsnip Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Mr. Black Hat

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 3352
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


quote:

MrEd45 wrote:

quote:

Witchy Nightmare wrote:

And what if Blackmore, Lord, Coverdale, Hughes and for example Bobby Rondinelli come together and want to do a record as "Deep Purple" ?






 I think that your scenario goes into that 'majority' of the 'original members' thing. With only two of what are considered the five 'original members' and with the other three - I'm assuming that your scenario takes place while the current band 'Deep Purple' + it's current line-up are still a recording/performing entity - still in a band that has the legal rights to the name 'Deep Purple', I think there'd probably be some legal issues involved.
 




I don´t think that that judgement will fall out the same way today. Much more water in the river since 1980. And there would be a new trial, in anyone cared enough to even make the scenario happen.
I do believe though, as long as Paice and/or Gillan and/or Glover keeps the DP name a uninterrupted affair, no-one can claim the name. I mean they´ve all left by free will, except Evans/Simper/Hughes/Bolin/Turner. So how can they claim the name?
24/3/2005, 16:41 Link to this post Send Email to mrsnip   Send PM to mrsnip
 
MrEd45 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Admin

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 9983
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


quote:

MrSnip wrote:

a) I don´t think that that judgement will fall out the same way today. Much more water in the river since 1980.

b) And there would be a new trial, in anyone cared enough to even make the scenario happen.

c) I do believe though, as long as Paice and/or Gillan and/or Glover keeps the DP name a uninterrupted affair, no-one can claim the name.

d) I mean they´ve all left by free will, except Evans/Simper/Hughes/Bolin/Turner.

e) So how can they claim the name?






a) Agreed. That's why in an earlier post I allowed for the subsequent decisions in the Pink Floyd + Yes legal quagmires. I think the 1980 decision regarding the legal ownership of the name "Deep Purple" established some precedents that may have been further refined and made a bit more flexible concerning what would constitute a 'majority' or 'original members' in each individual band's case.
 A lot may also depend on the contracts that are signed by band members with their managements. Whether there's a 'standard' type of contract that must be adhered to by all musicians/managements or if that's up to the people involved in each individual case to make up clauses in their own contracts with one another, I've no idea.

b) Also agreed. If the money involved was a signifigant enough sum, I'm pretty sure there'd be legal proceedings.

c) Yup. That's also what I believe.

d) Yup. And the people that were fired were in an obvious minority as far as being able to claim 'ownership' of the name "Deep Purple". As previously pointed out, both Evans + Simper had already agreed to that back in 1969 (in Evans' case) and sometime in the early 70s (in Simper's case). Bolin + Hughes were part of the band when it was decided to end Deep Purple as a recording/performing entity by - at worst - a 3 (Coverdale, Lord + Paice) to 2 (Bolin + Hughes) vote. Though my understanding is that there never was a 'formal' vote to decide this, the 3 'nay' votes were sufficient to management who issued a formal statement regarding the dissolution of Deep Purple in July of 1976 (I think).

e) I think this also applies to personnel who voluntarily left the band - Blackmore + Lord. It probably makes for smoother sailing for all involved for those people to leave and not raise any legal stinks over 'name' ownership and leave on fairly amicable terms and just cash those royalty checks from back catalogue sales and publishing rights to music they were credited with helping to write.
  I'm not sure what their legal standing would be, but if anyone would have any sort of claim to the name "Deep Purple" after voluntarily leaving the band it would be either Blackmore or Lord. being the acknowledged 'founders' of the band. Hell, Blackmore (in theory) could use Lord's very own recollections against Lord by pointing out that Lord has long acknowledged that the name "Deep Purple" came about by the then-band personnel leaving a pen + paper lying about thier digs for any of the personnel to write down suggestions for alternatives to the name "Roundabout". One morning the name "Deep Purple" appeared and it's been acknowledged that it was in Blackmore's handwriting.


ps - I hope no lawyers looking to file a frivolous-yet-potentially-profitable lawsuit reads the last couple of sentences of what I just posted. emoticon ( emoticon / emoticon )

Last edited by MrEd45, 26/3/2005, 7:25


---
" Those who can - do. Those who can't do - teach. Those who can't do or teach - administrate."
- Anon.

" One that will not reason is a bigot. One that cannot reason is an ignoramus. One that dares not reason is a slave." - Anon
24/3/2005, 17:37 Link to this post Send Email to MrEd45   Send PM to MrEd45 Blog
 
mrsnip Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Mr. Black Hat

Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 3352
Reply | Quote
Re: Legal Purple Questions


quote:

MrEd45 wrote:
ps - I hope no lawyers looking to file a frivolous-yet-potentially-profitable lawsuit reads the last couple of sentences of what I just posted. emoticon ( emoticon / emoticon )



Who would really care enough to spend money on such a thing. Back then, there was money in the name (still is a bit!) but not worth the expenses.

As you and I agree, righrfull owners now must be the current DP. I don´t like them, but they "have" the name. No other forner members can legally dispute that. I´d put up amother scenario.

a) Gillan leaves because of a woman in tokyo.

the rest decides to find another DP singer.

b) Glover leave, because he doesn´t like the new singer.

the rest decides to find a new bass player.

c) Paice leaves because he doesn´t like the new bass player.

the rest decides to find another drummer.

Who will deserve the name?

a) Blackmore+Gillan+Glover+Lord+Paice in a new reunion tour?

b) Current DP?

24/3/2005, 18:32 Link to this post Send Email to mrsnip   Send PM to mrsnip
 


Reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)