Dweezil Zappa Renames His Tour Again: Dweezil Zappa Plays Whatever The F@%k He Wants; The Cease & Desist Tour

from the oh-boy dept

Oh boy. A few weeks back, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous story in which the four children of Frank Zappa appear to be fighting over the Zappa name. The story is somewhat complex and involved and is actually somewhat more nuanced than the unfortunately-all-too-typical "heirs of famous artist fight over splitting up the proceeds of that artist's legacy." In that original article, we noted that the dispute seemed to focus on two specific claims: first that the Zappa Family Trust (run by Ahmet and Diva, but to which all four children are beneficiaries) had a trademark on the tour name "Zappa Plays Zappa," under which Dweezil Zappa had toured for years. After some fairly public back and forth online, it became clear that there was an underlying dispute that had simmered for years here: Frank's wife Gail, who had controlled the ZFT, had trademarked Zappa Plays Zappa and charged Dweezil to use it, but had (according to Dweezil) then reneged on an agreement to share the proceeds from merchandise sales. Ahmet insisted that he'd allow Dweezil to continue to use the name for just $1, but it didn't seem that there was any interest in clearing up the older dispute about merch sales, or to allow Dweezil to get some of the proceeds from ongoing merch sales.

The trademark claim seemed... at least possible, though there were arguments for either side, including a fairly strong one that Dweezil had every right to use that name without needing to license it. But the really ridiculous claim was that the family trust could stop Dweezil from playing Frank Zappa's songs. The ZFT had a convoluted -- and simply wrong -- interpretation of copyright law, to argue that Section 115 of the Copyright Act doesn't apply to Frank Zappa's music, because it's part of a "dramatic work." This is basically a nonstarter and would almost certainly be laughed out of court if it ever got there. Such a theory would basically upend decades upon decades of rather settled law concerning the ability to perform cover songs.

But, now it appears that the Zappa Family Trust also has some ridiculously nutty trademark theories as well. That's because to avoid the trademark issue, Dweezil originally changed the tour name to "Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa." Not nearly as catchy, as everyone agrees, but functional. Apparently, Ahmet and the ZFT lawyers sent a laughably wrong cease and desist letter to Dweezil claiming that merely using the name Zappa was trademark infringement:

This week, a lawyer for the trust informed Dweezil’s lawyer that the name Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa infringed on the trust’s trademarks of the terms “Zappa” and “Frank Zappa.”

This is just wrong. In the response from Dweezil's lawyers, they pointed out that this was nominative fair use: "the use of 'Frank Zappa' merely serves to accurately describe the nature of the show and is in no way misleading or defamatory." Since no one's published the full letters -- just snippets -- I don't know why they mention defamation in there, but that's a whole different legal minefield.

Either way, to avoid having to deal with that threat, Dweezil has changed the name of the tour yet again so that it's now: 50 Years of Frank: Dweezil Zappa Plays Whatever the F@%k He Wants – The Cease and Desist Tour. Really. Dweezil also notes that "Yes there will be CEASE AND DESIST 2016 tour shirts" on the tour (along with additional merchandise unrelated to the Zappa Family Trust). I will say that as a legal nerd, I really, really want a Dweezil Zappa t-shirt that says "cease and desist" if anyone happens to be going to one of the shows (unfortunately, the tour isn't coming anywhere near me, though it is playing the town I grew up in -- but I doubt I can convince my parents to go). If anyone is going to one of the shows and feels like hooking me up with a t-shirt, contact me please.

In the end, this whole thing, like so many intellectual property debates, seems almost entirely pointless. Intellectual property just becomes something that people fight over because they can, and it makes it difficult for people to step back and take a look at the bigger picture to recognize just how stupid the whole thing looks. It's hard to think of any sane or logical reason why Dweezil shouldn't be able to go out on tour as Zappa Plays Zappa. The idea that trademark should get involved in any of this would only make sense in the most ridiculous of trademark scenarios -- one where greed seems to be leading over basic common sense.

Filed Under: ahmet zappa, cease and desist, dweezil zappa, frank zappa, trademark, zappa plays zappa
Companies: zappa family trust

Zappa Threatens Zappa Over Zappa Plays Zappa

from the stupid-family-ip-disputes dept

Another week, another story about the abuse of intellectual property. This one, like many, involve the "estate" of a famous, but deceased, creator. In this case, it's the estate of Frank Zappa, which apparently is managed by two of his four children: Ahmet and Diva. The other two children are beneficiaries of the estate, but not trustees. The issue here is that one of the other siblings, Dweezil Zappa, wanted to go out on tour under the name "Zappa Plays Zappa" in which he plays songs by Frank Zappa. Sounds reasonable... and, in fact, he's been playing under that moniker for a while. Except, this time, Ahmet has said that it's not allowed and forced Dweezil to change the name to "Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa" which is not nearly as catchy.

The intellectual property claims made by Ahmet and the Zappa Family Trust are mostly not based in any actual US law. Here's the way the NY Times describes it:

This month, the Zappa Family Trust, which owns the rights to Mr. Zappa’s music, informed Dweezil that he did not have permission to tour as Zappa Plays Zappa — the name is a trademark owned by the trust — and that he risked copyright infringement damages of $150,000 each time he played a song without proper permission.

The trademark claim makes at least some sense. The estate does, in fact, hold a trademark (78938430) on "Zappa Plays Zappa," which was registered back in 2007 and covers live music concerts. Late last year, however, it appears that Ahmet and the Zappa Family Trust filed for two more trademarks on the phrase: one to cover various apparel and one for musical recordings. It appears this may be the root of the issue here. However, Dweezil claims that he's already licensed the Zappa Plays Zappa brand for his concerts from his now deceased mother, claiming he paid her "an exorbitant fee."

Apparently, some of the complaints here stem from disagreements over payments from merchandise sales on this tour and who gets the money.

But the really nutty part of all this is the copyright part. The claim that he risked $150k each time he played a song is just nuts. First of all, even if it was infringing (and it's not, as we'll explain in a minute), the law actually provides only a maximum of $150k "per work infringed" not "per act of infringement." It's a fine line distinction, obviously, but it's worth noting. But, either way, it's dumb because Dweezil isn't infringing.

As we've discussed probably hundreds of times here at Techdirt, anyone can cover another artist's song. If you're doing a recording, you just need to pay compulsory mechanical licenses, but if you're just performing it live, it's covered via the venue's blanket performance licenses with ASCAP or BMI (with Frank Zappa, it's ASCAP). Except... the Zappa family wants the world to believe that the law there does not apply to them. Rather, they're playing fast and loose with some tricky definitions. Section 115 of the Copyright Act is about how the compulsory licensing works, and it has an adjective that the Zappas are trying to turn into a loophole:

In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by clauses (1) and (3) of section 106, to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section.

"Nondramatic." Historically, this has been interpreted by many in the copyright space (perhaps reasonably) to say that compulsory licensing a la ASCAP or BMI can't be used for putting on a musical. Instead, for a musical, you do need to negotiate directly with the composers/publishing rights holders. A somewhat murky area of copyright law has grown up around this which is sometimes referred to as "grand rights," despite no such phrase appearing anywhere in the actual law, and that has resulted in some amount of confusion. If you really want a deep dive on grand rights, this article is a pretty good start.

But, again, grand rights (whatever they may actually be) only apply to "dramatic performances," which generally means plays and musicals. That's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Dweezil Zappa going on tour as (basically) a cover band of his father's work. But don't tell that to Ahmet Zappa:

But the most contentious part of the dispute is over the minutiae of music licensing, an area in which the Zappa estate has long taken controversial stances. The family trust argues that for a show consisting largely of Frank Zappa’s music, performers cannot rely on the standard performing-rights licenses that music venues typically get from agencies like Ascap or BMI, but instead need special permission from the estate for “grand rights,” a term that usually applies to theatrical presentations.

Gail Zappa and Ascap pursued a number of bands under this theory, with mixed success. Project/Object, a well-known Zappa tribute group, had some of its shows canceled by clubs that had received legal letters, but Andre Cholmondeley, a member of the band, said that the group was advised by a lawyer that it did not need a special license, and so has never gotten one. “We simply adhered to U.S.A. law,” Mr. Cholmondeley said in an email.

The NY Times article, thankfully, quotes a copyright lawyer, Conrad Rippy, who explains why grand rights don't apply here at all:

“Is it performed in a place where you generally would perform a theatrical work? Are people wearing costumes? Does it advance a narrative story line?” Mr. Rippy said. “The closer you get to answer those questions ‘Yes,’ the more it looks like that’s a grand right. A tribute band playing a Frank Zappa song in a club meets none of those tests.”

So, yeah, the whole "grand rights" claim is ridiculous -- and as with so many intellectual property disputes involving the heirs of famous artists/creators, this seems to be yet another case where it's just family members squabbling over how to divvy up the spoils, and using obscure intellectual property laws to try to advantage themselves over others. And, in the end, all it really seems to do is tarnish the legacy of those creators.

Filed Under: ahmet zappa, copyright, dweezil zappa, grand rights, trademark, zappa plays zappa
Companies: zappa family trust