Dispute Over Ray Charles Songs, Family Gains Victory...

Here's another comprehensive spin on the Children of Ray Charles and their battle to honor, protect and defend their fathers legacy that you may find, a good read:

In Dispute Over Ray Charles Songs, Family Gains Victory in Court

By BEN SISARIO

A dispute between the children of Ray Charles and the foundation to which he left most of his money is the latest battleground in one of the entertainment industry’s most contentious issues: the “termination rights” that allow artists and their families to recover the copyrights to their work from third parties like record companies or publishers.

Last week a federal judge in California ruled that the Ray Charles Foundation cannot interfere with the efforts of seven of Charles’s 12 surviving children to recover the music publishing rights to about 60 of his classic songs, like “I Got a Woman,” “Hallelujah I Love Her So” and “Mary Ann.” The foundation, a nonprofit charitable organization founded by Charles in 1986, currently receives royalties on those songs.
In a further blow, the judge, Audrey B. Collins of United States District Court in Los Angeles, also ruled that the foundation must reimburse the children for their legal expenses.

The case combines the drama of a family fight over a celebrity’s legacy with a detail of United States copyright law that poses a threat to the entertainment industry. An amendment to the law that took effect in 1978 let artists recover rights to their work after 35 years; the rule also applied to works copyrighted before 1978, but after a maximum of 56 years. Artists can do this by officially “terminating” the agreements that had transferred the work to other parties.

In the music industry, most of the concern about these cases has been about whether record companies and publishers would prevail over artists by claiming that their music was “work for hire” — in other words, produced by an employee — and thus exempt from termination claims. But the Charles case also reveals how complicated these claims can be when they involve deceased authors and their wills.

The case was triggered in 2010 when Charles’s children filed termination notices for the songs with their publisher, Warner/Chappell. Last year, the foundation — which includes former business associates of Ray Charles but no members of his family — sued the children, saying that they did not have the rights to reclaim the songs’ copyrights, and that they had also breached agreements with their father. Before Charles’s death in 2004, most of his children signed agreements saying that in exchange for $500,000, they would make no further claims on his estate after he died.

Judge Collins ruled against the foundation, saying that the law gave rights to surviving family members of a deceased artist which cannot be superseded by any other agreement — including a will.
Valerie Ervin, the foundation’s president, said it would appeal the decision. “The very clear and unmistakable intention of both Ray Charles and all his children was that, in exchange for a substantial payment, the children were not to raise any claims against their father’s estate,” Ms. Ervin said in a statement. “The children who filed these termination notices violated the sacred promise they made. They took their father’s money and now come back for more. The law is very unsettled in these matters and we intend to seek resolution through the courts.”

The judge also approved a motion brought by the Charles family to dismiss the suit under laws against so-called Slapp suits, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, which obstruct free speech and petition. As part of that victory, the judge ruled that the foundation must pay the family’s legal fees, which will be determined later.

“The decision is important for authors/artists and their families everywhere,” Marc Toberoff, the lawyer for the Charles children, wrote in a statement. “A disturbing trend has emerged where adversely affected companies initiate frivolous legal action to chill the exercise of the Copyright Act’s inalienable termination right. By holding that termination is protected under anti-SLAPP statutes, which include a mandatory award of attorneys fees, those who pursue such strategies do so at their own peril.”