[ad_1]
Is Cher’s claim for $1 million in royalties against Mary Bono strong enough? One judge seems to think so.
In a court hearing Monday, a federal judge said he believes Cher is entitled to ongoing royalties for writing songs like “I Got U Babe” and “The Beat Goes On,” as outlined in her divorce settlement from 1978 with Sonny Bono, despite Sonny’s heirs. her exercising her right to recover her underlying copyright under the Federal Copyright Act.
In his interim ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt said he believes the marital settlement agreement (MSA) gave Cher a specific share of the incoming profits, rather than a copyright grant, for so your claim is protected by state contract law and not subject to copyright termination rules. He said that distinction answers the “key issue” of the case and was inclined to rule in favor of Cher.
“The plain language of the MSA grants the right to profits from musical compositions and interests, not the underlying copyrights,” he said in his federal courtroom in downtown Los Angeles. “I do not believe that the termination notice could affect (Cher’s) notice of contractual rights under the MSA.”
Judge Kronstadt also said he was not convinced by Mary’s arguments that Cher’s lawsuit should be dismissed because she never named Sonny’s other heirs (her four children, including Cher’s son Chaz Bono) as defendants, even though the case also affects their royalty payments. “I believe that (Mary Bono’s) interests are sufficiently aligned with those of Sonny’s children that she can adequately represent them, and there is evidence of (her) knowledge of this litigation, but no objection or effort to intervene,” the judge said.
Judge Kronstadt further stated that he disagreed with Mary’s claim that Cher lacks “standing” in the case and should not be allowed to sue because she sold her share of Sonny Bono’s songwriting royalties when she sold much of it. from his catalog to Irving Azoff’s Iconic Artists Group. in 2022. “Standing is assessed at the time of filing, and at the time of filing (in 2021), there was standing,” the judge said Monday. He said Cher also has standing because any possible change in her right to receive royalties would affect her agreement with Iconic, since she “presumably received compensation in exchange for granting rights to these funds.”
But Judge Kronstadt seemed willing to side with Mary in terms of agreeing with her that the MSA granted Sonny’s heirs the “exclusive” right to nominate candidates to administer the copyright to his composition and receive a Management fee of up to 10 percent. This is important to Mary, her lawyers said, because she believes Iconic wants to handle the administration themselves, “in-house.”
“They have no interest in naming anyone,” Mary’s attorney, Daniel Schacht, told the court Monday. He said Mary was concerned that Iconic would “force” the heirs to re-litigate over the appointment of an administrator.
With the judge’s tentative ruling leaning heavily in favor of Cher, Schacht devoted the last part of his argument Monday to a possible compromise proposal. He said that if the court sticks to its interim ruling and decides that Cher has a continuing right to songwriting royalties, it should be limited to the same portion of the artist’s 50 percent share that she and Sonny split when they signed their agreement. . Mary’s lawyers calculated this at 36 cents for every dollar of royalties. Schacht argued that any “publisher’s share” recovered by the heirs through the termination of Sonny’s agreements should go only to the heirs. He said that if anyone should get a “windfall” from the Copyright Act terminations, it should be the artists’ heirs, not a music company to which a former spouse sold his rights. “With this middle ground we’ve proposed, where the publisher’s share only reverts to Mary and Sonny’s children, Cher would continue to get everything they bargained for, while the windfall would go to the intended heirs,” he said.
Cher’s lawyer, Peter J. Anderson, scoffed at the idea. “This is not a negotiation. The law is clear. “The statute says termination does not affect state rights in any way, and the MSA says Cher is entitled to 50 percent of (songwriting) royalties from all sources, not excluding publishing sources,” Anderson said.
The star’s lawyer argued that when Sonny and Cher signed their divorce agreement in August 1978, they were “sophisticated people” represented by “sophisticated lawyers.” They also knew two things at the time: “That these songs had actually been released and that ‘I Got U Babe’ and ‘Bang Bang’ were big hits. They knew it. They also knew that the Copyright Act 1976 was in force and that as of January 1, 1978 they had a right of termination. So when they said Cher receives 50 percent of all royalties from all sources, that includes replacement publishing deals when they terminate the initial publishing deals. These songs have already been tested in the market. “These sophisticated people already knew about termination rights.”
Judge Kronstadt did not immediately make his provisional decision on Monday. He is expected to issue his formal ruling in the coming weeks. In the meantime, he suggested that the parties try to mediate once again to reach a possible agreement. If the judge makes his tentative ruling as noted, the remaining dispute over the exact royalties owed to Cher for the period before her sale to Iconic could lead to a trial, but most of the money is in an escrow account at guarantee, so it is likely that the parties would reach an agreement.
Cher, 77, won a Grammy, an Oscar and an Emmy and began acting with Sonny in 1964 and appeared with him in The Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour before moving on to a career as a solo singer and critically acclaimed film roles. silk wood, Face mask, The Witches of Eastwickand Lunatic.
She and Sonny married in 1967, had a son together, and separated in 1974. Sonny, who wrote her biggest hits, including “I Got U Babe,” before marrying Cher, died in 1998 after a skiing accident. leaving his widow Mary. in control of her assets. When Sonny’s copyright grants became eligible for termination in 2018, Mary decided to invoke the right.
Elected to replace Sonny in Congress after his death, Mary served as a Republican United States Representative for the Palm Springs area of Southern California from 1998 to 2013. She previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to convince the court that Federal copyright law took precedence over any state contract or contract. community property laws cited by Cher.