Lemonheads sue GM for...

...profits!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31132531/

What sandpile have they had their heads stuck in?

They're suing both GM and the ad agency, and are after the ad agency's profits for the campaign, i.e., however much money the agency made off GM.

Lost profits isn't the appropriate measure of damages against GM, even if GM had any profit. However, the ad agency's profit on the campaign is probably more than the band would get using a "reasonable royalty" damages calculation.

Yeah, I read the article but that doesn't sound as funny or ironic now does it?

I thought this had something to do with the candy. Never heard of Lemonheads band.

I was thinking it was thinking it was a newly coined term for participants of the 24hrs of LeMons, and they were finding a new outlet for some shenanigans.

As part owner of GM, do I have to pay for part of the settlement when he wins?

How do you get paid if you sin a suit against a bankrupt company? Seriously. I don't know.

jg

Even if he expects to get no money from GM, it's probably a good idea to sue them to prevent other companies from ripping off his music in the future. If he doesn't vigourously protect his work, he could lose his right to sue in the future. (I think).

Bob

JG Pasterjak wrote: How do you get paid if you sin a suit against a bankrupt company? Seriously. I don't know.

Generally, a lawsuit judgment creditor would be in line like all the other unsecured creditors.

My guess is that GM won't every pay out a dime on this. If I were GM, I'd stick this in the entity that gets all the crappy assets. Thus, even if the band wins, the ad agency (who is the "real" infringer," if any) will be the deeper pocket.

That said, I don't remember if there is any significance to the fact that the suit wasn't filed until after the bankruptcy petition. I didn't take Bankruptcy in law school, and I just crammed enough of it to be able to pass the bar exam a decade or so ago.

Schmidlap wrote: Even if he expects to get no money from GM, it's probably a good idea to sue them to prevent other companies from ripping off his music in the future. If he doesn't vigourously protect his work, he could lose his right to sue in the future. (I think).

Not exactly. While there are laches and estoppel defenses (basically you waited too long to sue), these defenses would be personal to GM, and wouldn't usually affect other infringers. What's more likely going on is some combination of three things: (1) they want an injunction to stop GM from using the ad, (2) lawyers like to sue anybody because you never know what will stick, and (3) in this case one of the theories of liability could be that the ad agency induced or contributed to the infringement by GM. To nail an indirect infringer (i.e., the ad agency) you typically need to prove the direct infringement, which is procedurally easier if the direct infringer (i.e., GM) is also a party to the suit.

porksboy wrote: I thought this had something to do with the candy. Never heard of Lemonheads band.

They were indie darlings in the mid/late '90s. Evan Dando was the lead singer and Julianna Hatfield played bass.

billy3esq wrote: What's more likely going on is some combination of three things: (1) they want an injunction to stop GM from using the ad, (2) lawyers like to sue anybody because you never know what will stick, and (3) in this case one of the theories of liability could be that the ad agency induced or contributed to the infringement by GM. To nail an indirect infringer (i.e., the ad agency) you typically need to prove the direct infringement, which is procedurally easier if the direct infringer (i.e., GM) is also a party to the suit.

there's also the fact that they stole his song. that admittedly goes more toward the question of whether he CAN sue vs. whether it's worth doing so.

the bankruptcy means that this won't go forward until the BK is resolved. once GM filed for BK, a mandatory stay went into place, which will apply to this case unless Dando can get the BK court to lift the stay so the suit can proceed. unlikely that he can show the necessity of going forward now.

in a work for hire case, which party is the "direct" infringer? GM (presumably) owns the copyright to the ad, but the agency is the one who created the infringing work (assuming it infringes).

The Lemonheads are too big to fail.

If the dude from Lemonheads pays taxes, isnt that a conflict of interest since he is part owner of gm?

I read the title and thought about the disgusting hard candy, not some has-been 90s band.

Geeeeezz........real good timing.

Buzz Killington wrote: in a work for hire case, which party is the "direct" infringer? GM (presumably) owns the copyright to the ad, but the agency is the one who created the infringing work (assuming it infringes).

(1) GM's ownership, if any, is likely not as a work for hire. The ad agency would own the creative efforts of its employees by virture of a work for hire, but, because the ad agency is a contractor vis-a-vis GM, GM's ownership (assuming there is any) would be by assignment. (2) Ownership of the copyright to the ad is irrelevant to most, if not all, of the acts of infringement (there's more than one here).

Buzz Killington wrote:

billy3esq wrote: What's more likely going on is some combination of three things: (1) they want an injunction to stop GM from using the ad, (2) lawyers like to sue anybody because you never know what will stick, and (3) in this case one of the theories of liability could be that the ad agency induced or contributed to the infringement by GM. To nail an indirect infringer (i.e., the ad agency) you typically need to prove the direct infringement, which is procedurally easier if the direct infringer (i.e., GM) is also a party to the suit.

the bankruptcy means that this won't go forward until the BK is resolved.

Automatic stay or no, GM should be long out of its "surgical" bankruptcy before discovery would even have been underway in the copyright case? Also, the stay only affects when the dispute is resolved as against GM, not what GM's liability is, which is the more interesting question (and what I was alluding to as to the effect of the bankruptcy).

Besides, if I were GM's lawyer, there would be an indemnity in the ad agency's contract anyhow.

you're likely right about the practical timing of the thing.

agreed as to the procedural vs. liability issue. i was just answering the question as to the effect of the pending bankruptcy. we have a case stayed right now b/c of a BK filing...filed a few hours before we filed our reply brief, so our brief is still sitting on a desk.

"It's a Shame About Ray" is such a basic chord progression that it might be tough to sue over it--I'm thinking there are a ton of other songs in the same boat

See also: Coldplay being sued by Joe Satriani