Smokey Robinson Sues Ex-Wife To Prevent Her From Claiming 50% Of His Recaptured Motown Hits
from the ex-wife's-claim-no-less-ridiculous-than-descendants'-claims-of-70-years dept
If there's anything as labyrinthine as copyright law, it's divorce law. Smokey Robinson, the composer of several Motown hits, is combining both.
Smokey Robinson sued his ex-wife, Claudette Rogers Robinson, seeking declaratory judgment that he may terminate and "recapture" the copyrights to all the songs he wrote during their marriage, and that she cannot claim interest in them under California community property law.Robinson is reclaiming the rights to his pre-1978 songs from Jobete Music Co., something many artists are doing as copyright termination goes into effect. Robinson's main problem, oddly, isn't Jobete arguing that the songs were "work for hire," but rather that his ex-wife (who he divorced in 1985) believes she should be entitled to 50% of whatever income these songs generate.
The Dec. 2, 2013 letter from counsel is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A. In it, Claudette claims 50 percent interest and demands 50 percent payment of the royalties and advances from all songs she claims as community property.Robinson's filing points to a couple of aspects which would seem to lock Claudette Rogers-Robinson out of claiming half of his songs' profits.
"She is entitled to half the publisher's share and half the writer's share," Claudette's counsel wrote in a Dec. 6 follow-up email.
"[T]he 1976 Copyright Act expressly provides that these 'recaptured' copyrights belong to the author alone, which is plaintiff. Moreover, the 1976 Copyright Act precludes any transfer of those copyrights before the terminations themselves are effective. Thus, any transfer of such rights to any third party, whether defendant or a music publisher, was barred by the 1976 Copyright Act, and is therefore null and void."So, according to this claim, his ex-wife couldn't have made any legal claim to the songs prior to rights termination, and seems to prevent her from doing so post-recapture. But another point Robinson raises seems to conflict with the assumptions of the current life+70 years copyright term.
"As a result of the divorce, all copyrights, contract, and/or royalty rights to the musical compositions created between November 7, 1959 and May 30, 1985 were purportedly divided between plaintiff and defendant as tenants-in-common. Defendant also received a monthly spousal support payment of substantial sums and significant real and personal property."By Smokey's reasoning, any person who didn't partake in the creative process of copyrighted works should be locked out of profiting from the works. This raises a question: if his ex-wife has no right to profit from Smokey's songs, why should Smokey's descendants?
However, Smokey says: "Defendant did not write any part of any of the musical compositions at issue; her interest was awarded on the basis of community property principles alone."
The current copyright term allows heirs or other rights holders to exploit copyrighted material for 70 years after the death of the creator. Arguing that passing copyright control on to heirs is roughly comparable to an inheritance relies more on "community property principles" than copyright law. But intellectual property isn't directly comparable to "real property" (land, houses, belongings, etc.). Real property has no set (but highly arbitrary) expiration date and isn't subject to a "limited" period of protection.
Robinson asserts he "solely" owns these songs because he is the composer. Following this line of thinking, Robinson's descendants should have no legal claim to profits from Robinson's creations for 70 years after his death. If copyright law were deployed honestly, his "sole creator" claim would terminate his claim -- and any of his heirs' -- at the time of his death. But it isn't. And everyone involved -- from the labels claiming pre-1978 songs were "work for hire" to Smokey Robinson claiming his ex-wife isn't entitled to profits (but presumably his heirs are) -- is twisting the law to assert control.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, divorce, music, smokey robinson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But, you know...
...
Oh, who the hell am I kidding? The people of the Copyfraud Alliance want their cake and eat it at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But, you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was wondering why this article was interesting until I read that. Now it's fascinating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting
However I don't agree that the intent of copyright / patents is being served; providing incentive to 'artisans' and the spread of useful knowledge. Clearly the terms at the time of creation were sufficient and these later laws are simply a form of welfare and/or avoiding suit against the various monopoly groups (RIAA/MPAA etc) by misdirecting the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're right, and it's hilarious in it's laziness and ineptness. Instead of arguing against whatever stance the artist has taken (or triggered), they really seem to believe that the personal attack (dismissing the artist as irrelevant) is convincing anyone. On the other hand, we're talking about trolls, and that's SOP with trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point of my comment was "No one's going to care, so he's wasting his time."
When it comes to spending in Hollywood, it's going to be hard pressed for me to believe his music will be in a future movie anytime soon.
This news just highlights he's expecting the entitled "pay up or shut up" revenue if anyone comes knocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
only one of the best musicians/singers/songwriters of his generation, that's all...
(approximately 10 times more talented than 90% of the current generation of musicians... a better pharrell williams before pharrell was a glint in his daddy's eyes...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights...nah, divorce
Smokey ain't takin' this approach for any principle other than f@#% you, b!#&%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you mean post-1978, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this even a case?
Or is there a part of divorce law that forces him to give her 50% of all the assets he gets until the end of his life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this even a case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this even a case?
I don't have the first clue about divorce law in California. The state I got divorced in isn't even a community property state.
However, I can engage in pure speculation that in some circumstances a case could be made for this. If the spouse if half owner in everything acquired during the marriage, then she's half owner in revenue-producing property as well, and could be due half of the income it produces.
Also, we don't know what's in the divorce decree. A divorce decree can contain all kinds of stipulations that are not required by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this even a case?
Nagging doesn't count as inspiration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute here
Come on someone is pulling the wool over someones eyes here...either they are making money or they are not, the cant argue one case saying they are and another saying they are not, that is just lies and bad for anyone that wants to support artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm...
A pretty good argument in favor of shifting to a system of lawless anarchy.
Lawyers would be out of work -and- could be hunted for sport without repercussion.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We need a legal system where you can't be bankrupted for *successfully* fighting off barratry. SLAPP laws are a step in the right direction. But we need to demand more from our would-be leaders - turn it into an election issue - rather than joking about hunting lawyers for sport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now there is a somewhat interesting question as to if the right to reclaim copyrights was included or not, i would expect not, as he does not need to exercise the rights, and only he can exercise the rights at this time.
the question of his heirs making money is really pretty stupid, drop it.
now a better question is if the original artist is dead, can his/her heir(s) reclaim the copy right or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Smokey Robinson claiming his ex-wife isn't entitled to profits (but presumably his heirs are) -- is twisting the law to assert control."
I don't think so. I he were to pass and they were still married, then she would have rights as well as his children. With the dissolution of marriage, she loses those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LAB
By pass I assume you mean die, and not decline from bidding in a game of Gin Rummy.
I swear, I'm going to leave instructions that anyone who refers to my death as passing, be executed on the spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By Smokey's reasoning, any person who didn't partake in the creative process of copyrighted works should be locked out of profiting from the works. This raises a question: if his ex-wife has no right to profit from Smokey's songs, why should Smokey's descendants?
This is what happens when you try to treat creative output as property. It was never meant to be treated in that way and attempting to do so is unconstitutional. That's why Tim is actually right.
The current copyright term allows heirs or other rights holders to exploit copyrighted material for 70 years after the death of the creator. Arguing that passing copyright control on to heirs is roughly comparable to an inheritance relies more on "community property principles" than copyright law. But intellectual property isn't directly comparable to "real property" (land, houses, belongings, etc.). Real property has no set (but highly arbitrary) expiration date and isn't subject to a "limited" period of protection.
A minor quibble - it's the difference between freehold and leasehold. He's still right - constitutionally, creative output isn't property and shouldn't be treated that way. And the Constitution trumps all other laws. Whether or not the way people think about it has changed is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: law suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their is much dirt under the Music Carpet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motown is Not for the Clowns....
Berry Gordy rip off a lot of people who were entitled to keep their music copyrights. Marvin Tarplin, Rose Ella Jones (smokes sister) wrote many of the old songs, that Smokey sing today! Smoke took care of her all her life though, to show he is a good guy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diana Rosss was The Smart Supreme...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]