Temptations Name

[Queenie]

Board can you please try to answer my question:

When Otis retire from the Temptations, who has a legal right to perform under the name?

The man will be 64 years old this year (2004) and the body is not like it is 24 therefore he should be hanging up pretty soon!!

[Joda]

NDF, I don't have the faintest idea, but it is a great question... CP or Common... Personally I wonder if it dies with the legends, so to speak...

[molly]

NewDavidFan said:

Board can you please try to answer my question:

When Otis retire from the Temptations, who has a legal right to perform under the name?

The man will be 64 years old this year (2004) and the body is not like it is 24 therefore he should be hanging up pretty soon!!

New that is a good question! Otis went to court with DE over the name so I would think the name belongs to Otis. I hope thats not true. He claimed in his book that he legally patened the name. But I also heard Motown had. I really don't know. Maybe Andy and I can somehow get the name and preform as the Tempts!

[Common]

NDF- Motown owns the name legally. I will try & find the court papers that Otis filed against Melvin's widow. Apparently, Otis sued her because she "licensed" out the name without his permission. I'll see I can explain it without too much confusion. I don't remember all the particulars but here it goes:

Apparently, Motown owns the name but gives Otis exclusive rights to use the name for live performances & promotion(I'm not sure about this part though). I think that he is also allowed to the license the name as well. Melvin also had a part of the exclusive rights agreement. When he died, Otis stated that he gave $150,000 to Melvin's wife, Kim, so she would have a part of the licensing agreement, since she couldn't inherit it from her late husband. Kim, in turn, had "licensed" the name to Richard Street, but from whatever agreement she & Otis made, she wasn't allowed to do that. (I know it's confusing, isn't it?). Otis issued an injunction to prevent her from doing so. As for Dennis, Dennis had to pay O $50Gs but was allowed to keep the name "The Temptations Review" since it is a "Review" of Temptations material. I don't know if Dennis gives O a fee. I doubt that. But the whole crux of the issue is that O doesn't own the Temptations name. Motown does. Meanwhile, I'll surf to see if I can find the injunction.

[Queenie]

<<Common>> I have a headache :bonk:

[Queenie]

Board in other words the family members of the C5 will never get a dime from David's, Paul's, and Eddie's contributions?

[Common]

LOL! ;D ;D Sorry NDF! I didn't mean to make your head hurt. But once you read & learn about Motown, things there were quite complicated. As far as whether the deceased families make money, I doubt it. Eddie signed away his rights(personally, I think he was hounded by Motown but that's another story). David fought with Motown but not sure if his family gets royalties. Not sure about Paul's family either. Melvin's, well, I did recall that Melvin's kids sued their stepmom, Kim for some money that they claim she kept from them. As you see, the Tempts saga always has twists & turns.

[Andy]

Molly, if we perform together, you better do the singing.I'll be on the lookout for the groupies.

[Andy]

Hello Common: It looks like you are feeling better. My sense is that the royalties have to be negotiated in the original contract and that young, eager acts are so thrilled to sign a contract that they don't touch the royalty issue. Sometimes they don't want to push too far, sometimes they just don't know what's involved. That has been the problem with different acts over the years, and it's only after they do well that the issue pops up. Basically, if an act is savvy enough to understand about royalties, they lack bargaining power to get them, especially if the act is new and has no hits. Of course, new contracts could be made later, and if the act is strong and popular, the recording studio may give many new terms, including royalties, perhaps even retroactivly. Cher could have had that kind of leverage, for example.

[molly]

Andy said:

Molly, if we perform together, you better do the singing.I'll be on the lookout for the groupies.

:DThats a deal My Friend. But are you going to be keeping the groupies at bay or encouraging them?

[Common]

Andy said:

Hello Common: It looks like you are feeling better. My sense is that the royalties have to be negotiated in the original contract and that young, eager acts are so thrilled to sign a contract that they don't touch the royalty issue. Sometimes they don't want to push too far, sometimes they just don't know what's involved. That has been the problem with different acts over the years, and it's only after they do well that the issue pops up. Basically, if an act is savvy enough to understand about royalties, they lack bargaining power to get them, especially if the act is new and has no hits. Of course, new contracts could be made later, and if the act is strong and popular, the recording studio may give many new terms, including royalties, perhaps even retroactivly. Cher could have had that kind of leverage, for example.

Hey Andy! Yes, I'm feeling much better. As for royalties as it pertains to Motown, it was said that their rates were below industry standards. The musicians were salaried so they never received royalties unless they did production, writing etc. The royalty issue as it pertains to Motown is a tricky one. I've read that there are artists to this day, who are still paying back the company. And yes, royalties are based on as to what the artist signed & as everyone knows, artists back in the day signed contracts that were in the company's interest(it's still that way ironically but artists today are much more savvy & are demanding that the companies change their policies & contract demands). Again, it goes by the going rate at that particular time, which I think, was .5 to .8 per record/side(I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

In Motown's case, remember the artists were paying for all their expenses, from studio time to their dance/singing lessons. As for the what the C5 gets, it may depend on what contract they signed. I know that David had a separate contract from the other group members. It was said that David got a measly 1.8% & that was because he hadn't had a track record(recordings that is) before he joined the group. Motown said that these type of rates were reasonable because artists were either inexperienced or as I stated, didn't have a track record. The company had to recoup whatever expenses that they spent on a solo act/group. So you know, that no matter what the artists made, it went back to the company to pay for their expenses. I was told that nowadays the artists from yesteryear fought to have their rates updated or get royalties period from these record companies. So some companies had to pay the current rate but as I've read, still some oldies artists don't get much because royalties are based on how many CDs are sold.

[Andy]

Hello Molly: Now, why would you think I would even want to keep the groupies at bay? Isn't that part of the fun of it all?

[Andy]

Hello Common: You gave a very well thought out answer. There are some impressive members on this board and you are one of them. I never would have gotten all of that detail from any source. Your answer suggests that most of the leverage was with the studio and the performers were SOL unless they had star power behind them. It was a tough business. By the way, how did you learn all of that? Best, as always, AJA

[Queenie]

Thanks common for that fact finding informations. In other words, even if Eddie would received his royalties it would have been pennies based upon the number of CD sold with the C5.

Just a thought!!!

[BeesNVMe]

Common, you get an A+ for your analysis. Thanx.

Hi Andy! Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to all those I have not greeted today!